UC-NRLF 


LIBRARY 

OF  THK 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


OK 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 


Received  October, 
Accessions  No.  5~v  §^     .      Ctos  M?-. 


AN  EXPOSITION 


OF   THE 


FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS, 


BY 

CHAELES  HODGE,  D.D., 

PROFESSOR  IN   THE   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY,    PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


NEW  YOEK: 

ROBERT  CARTER  &  BROTHERS, 
530   BROADWAY. 

1860, 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S57,  by 

EGBERT  CARTER  &  BROTHERS, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  District 
of  New  York. 


JOHN  F.  TROW, 

PRINTER,  STEREOTYPES,  AND  ELECTROTYPER, 

877  &  379  Broadway,  cor.  White-st 


INTRODUCTION. 


§  1.  CORINTH. 

THE  Grecian  Peloponnesus  is  connected  with  the  continent  by 
an  isthmus  from  four  to  six  miles  wide.  On  this  isthmus  stood 
the  city  of  Corinth.  A  rocky  eminence,  called  the  Acrocorin- 
thus,  rises  from  the  plain  almost  perpendicularly,  to  the  height 
of  two  thousand  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea,  and  is  suffi 
ciently  broad  at  the  summit  for  a  town  of  considerable  size. 
From  the  top  of  this  abrupt  hill  the  eye  reaches  towards  the 
east  over  the  expanse  of  the  ^Egean  sea,  with  its  numerous 
islands;  and  westward,  towards  the  Ionian  sea,  a  prospect 
scarcely  less  inviting  was  presented.  Looking  towards  the 
north,  the  eye  rests  on  the  mountains  of  Attica  on  the  one 
hand,  and  north-eastern  Greece  on  the  other.  The  Acropolis 
of  Athens  was  clearly  visible  at  a  distance  of  forty-five  miles. 
As  early  as  the  days  of  Homer,  Corinth  was  an  important  city. 
Its  position  made  it,  in  a  military  point  of  view,  the  key  of  the 
Peloponnesus ;  and  its  command  of  a  port  on  two  seas,  made 
it  the  centre  of  commerce  between  Asia  and  Europe.  The 
supremacy  enjoyed  by  one  Grecian  State  after  another,  had  at 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

last  fallen  to  the  lot  of  Corinth.     It  became  the  chief  city  of 
Greece,  not  only  in  authority  but  in  wealth,  magnificence, 
literature,  the  arts,  and  in  luxury.     It  was  characteristic  of 
the  place,  that  while  the  temple  of  Minerva  crowned  the 
Acropolis  of  Athens,  the  Acrocorinthus  was  the  site  of  the 
temple  of  Venus.     Of  all  the  cities  of  the  ancient  world  it  was 
most  notorious  for  licentiousness.     It  was  entirely  destroyed 
by  the  Roman  consul  Mummius,  120  years  B.  C.,  its  inhabi 
tants  were  dispersed,  and  the  conqueror  carried  with  him  to 
Rome  the  richest  spoils  that  ever  graced  the  triumph  of  a 
Roman  General.    For  a  century  after  this  event  it  lay  in  ruins, 
serving  only  as  a  quarry  whence  the  Roman  patricians  gath 
ered  marble  for  their  palaces.     Julius  Caasar,  recognizing  the 
military  and  commercial  importance  of  the  position,  deter 
mined  to  rebuild  it,  and  for  that  purpose  sent  thither  a  colony 
consisting  principally  of  freed  men.     This  accounts  for  the 
predominance  of  Latin  names  which  we  meet  with  in  connec 
tion  with  the  Christians  of  this  city.    Erastus,  Phoebe  and 
Sosthenes  are  Greek  names ;  but  Gaius,  Quintus,  Fortunatus, 
Crispus,  Justus,  Achaicus  are  of  Roman  origin.    This  colony, 
however,  was  little  more  than  the  nucleus  of  the  new  city. 
Merchants  flocked  thither  from  all  parts  of  Greece ;  Jews  also 
were  attracted  by  the  facilities  of  commerce;   wealth,  art, 
literature  and  luxury  revived.     The  Isthmian  games  were 
again  celebrated  under  the  presidency  of  the  city.     It  was 
made  the  capital  of  Achaia,  which,  as  a  Roman  province,  in 
cluded  the  greater  part  of  Greece.  Under  the  fostering  care  of 
Augustus,  Corinth  regained  much  of  its  ancient  splendour,  and 
during  the  century  which  had  nearly  elapsed  since  its  restora 
tion,  before  it  was  visited  by  the  apostle  Paul,  it  had  reached 
a  preeminence  which  made  it  the  glory  of  Greece.     It  was  at 
this  time  under  the  rule  of  the  Proconsul  Gallio,  the  brother 
of  Seneca ; — a  man  distinguished  for  integrity  and  mildness. 
His  brother  says  of  him :  Nemo  enim  mortalium  uni  tarn  dul- 
cis  est,  quam  hie  omnibus.    His  refusal  to  entertain  the  frivo 
lous  charges  brought  by  the  Jews  against  Paul  (Acts  18, 14-16), 


INTRODUCTION.  V 

is  in  keeping  with  the  character  given  of  him  by  his  contem 
poraries.    He  was  one  of  the  victims  of  the  cruelty  of  Nero.* 

§2.  PAUL'S  LABOUKS  IN  COEINTH. 

As  Corinth  was  not  only  the  political  capital  of  Greece, 
but  the  seat  of  its  commercial  and  intellectual  life ;  the  place 
of  concourse  for  the  people  not  only  of  the  neighbouring  cities 
but  of  nations ;  a  source  whence  influences  of  all  kinds  ema 
nated  in  every  direction,  it  was  specially  important  for  the 
diffusion  of  the  gospel.  Paul  therefore,  leaving  Athens,  which 
he  had  visited  in  his  second  missionary  journey,  went  alone  to 
Corinth,  where  he  was  soon  after  joined  by  Silas  and  Timo- 
theus,  who  came  from  Macedonia.  (Acts  18,  5.)  A  stranger  in 
this  great  city,  and  without  the  means  of  support,  he  associat 
ed  himself  with  Aquila,  a  Jew  lately  come  from  Italy  in  con 
sequence  of  the  edict  of  Claudius  banishing  the  Jews  from 
Rome.  While  living  in  the  house  of  Aquila,  and  working 
with  him  at  his  trade  of  tent  making,  Paul  attended  the  syna 
gogue  every  Sabbath,  and  "  persuaded  the  Jews  and  Greeks." 
But  "  when  they  opposed  themselves  and  blasphemed,  he  shook 
his  raiment  and  said  unto  them,  Your  blood  be  upon  your  own 
heads.  I  am  clean :  henceforth  I  will  go  unto  the  Gentiles. 
And  he  departed  thence  and  went  into  a  certain  man's  house 
named  Justus,  one  who  worshipped  God,  and  whose  house 
joined  hard  to  the  synagogue.  And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler 
of  the  synagogue,  believed  on  the  Lord,  with  all  his  house ; 
and  many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing  it  believed  and  were 
baptized.  Then  spake  the  Lord  to  Paul  by  night,  by  a  vision, 

*  Several  monographs,  proceeding  from  German  scholars,  are  devoted  to 
the  description  and  history  of  Corinth.  Wilchen's  "  Rerutn  Corinthiarum  spe 
cimen  ad  illustrationem  utriusque  Epistolae  Paulinas.'*  1747.  Earth's  "  Corin- 
thiorum  Commercia  et  Mercaturae  particula."  Berlin,  1844.  A  very  inter 
esting  chapter  in  Conybeare  and  Howson's  Life  and  Epistles  of  Paul  is  devoted 
to  this  subject.  Vol.  1 :  ch.  12.  See  also  Winer's  Real  Worterbuch  and  Ar 
nold's  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians. 


VI  1NTEODUCTION. 

Be  not  afraid,  but  speak,  and  hold  not  thy  peace :  for  I  am 
with  thee,  and  no  man  shall  set  on  thee  to  hurt  thee ;  for  I 
have  much  people  in  this  city.  And  he  continued  there  a 
year  and  six  months,  teaching  the  word  of  God  among  them." 
(Acts  18,  1-11.)  The  success  of  Paul  aroused  the  enmity  of 
the  Jews,  who  determined  to  arraign  him  before  the  Roman 
Governor.  As  soon  as  the  governor  ascertained  the  nature  of 
the  charge  he  refused  to  listen  to  it,  and  dismissed  the  accusers 
from  the  judgment  seat  with  evident  displeasure,  which  encour 
aged  the  bystanders  to  beat  the  Jews.  Thus  the  opposers  of 
the  apostle  were  ignominiously  defeated.  After  remaining  some 
time  longer  in  Corinth  he  sailed  from  Cenchrea,  the  eastern 
port  of  the  city,  to  Ephesus,  with  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  Leav 
ing  his  friends  in  that  city  he  sailed  to  Caesarea,  and  thence 
went  up  to  Jerusalem.  After  remaining  a  short  time  in  the 
Holy  City  he  went  to  Antioch,  and  thence  through  Phrygia 
and  Galatia  again  to  Ephesus.  Shortly  after  Paul  left  Ephe 
sus  the  first  time,  Apollos,  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  having  been 
more  fully  instructed  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  by  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  went  to  Corinth,  and  there  "  mightily  convinced  the 
Jews,  and  that  publicly,  shewing  by  the  Scripture  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ."  (Acts  18,  24-28.)  It  is  altogether  probable, 
considering  the  constant  commercial  intercourse  between 
Corinth  and  Ephesus,  that  the  apostle  had  frequent  opportu 
nities  of  hearing  of  the  state  of  the  Corinthian  church  during 
his  three  years'  residence  in  the  latter  city.  The  information 
which  he  received  led  him,  as  is  generally  supposed,  to  write 
a  letter  no  longer  extant,  exhorting  them  "  not  to  keep  com 
pany  with  fornicators."  (See  1  Cor.  5,  9.)  Not  satisfied  with 
this  effort  to  correct  an  alarming  evil,  he  seems  himself  to 
have  made  them  a  brief  visit.  No  record  is  indeed  found  in 
the  Acts  of  his  having  been  to  Corinth  more  than  once  before 
the  date  of  this  epistle ;  but  there  are  several  passages  in  his 
second  epistle  which  can  hardly  be  understood  otherwise  than 
as  implying  an  intermediate  visit.  In  2  Cor.  12,  14  he  says, 
"  Behold  the  third  time  I  am  ready  to  come  to  you."  This 


INTRODUCTION.  vil 

may  indeed  mean  that  for  the  third  time  he  had  prepared  to 
go  to  Corinth,  but  this  the  context  does  not  suggest,  and 
would  really  amount  to  nothing.  It  was  not  how  often  he 
had  purposed  to  visit  them,  but  how  often  he  had  actually 
made  the  journey,  which  was  the  point  on  which  stress  is  laid. 
In  ch.  13,  1  he  says,  "This  is  the  third  time  I  am  coming  to 
you,"  which  is  still  more  explicit.  In  ch.  2,  1  he  says,  "  I  de 
termined  I  would  not  come  again  to  you  in  heaviness."  This 
supposes  that  he  had  already  made  them  one  sorrowful  visit, 
i.  e.  one  in  which  he  had  been  obliged  to  cause  sorrow,  as  well 
as  to  experience  it.  See  also  ch.  12,  21,  and  13,  2,  where  further 
allusion  seems  to  be  made  to  a  second  visit.  Notwithstanding 
his  frequent  injunctions,  the  state  of  things  in  Corinth  seemed 
to  be  getting  worse.  The  apostle  therefore  determined  to 
send  Timothy  and  Erastus  to  them  (1  Cor.  4,  17.  Acts  19,  22.) 
Whether  Timothy  reached  Corinth  at  this  time  is  doubtful ; 
and  it  would  seem  from  1  Cor.  16, 10,  that  the  apostle  himself 
feared  that  he  might  not  be  able  to  accomplish  all  that  had 
been  appointed  him  in  Macedonia,  and  yet  get  to  Corinth  be 
fore  the  arrival  of  this  letter.  After  the  departure  of  Timothy, 
Paul  received  such  intelligence  from  the  household  of  Chloe, 
and  from  a  letter  addressed  to  him  by  the  Corinthians  them 
selves  (1  Cor.  7,  1),  that  he  determined  at  once  to  write  to 
them. 

§  3.  STATE  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  CORINTH. 

The  state  of  the  church  in  Corinth  may  be  partially  inferred 
from  the  character  and  circumstances  of  the  people,  but  with 
certainty  only  from  the  contents  of  this  and  the  following 
epistles.  As  remarked  above,  the  population  of  the  city  was 
more  than  ordinarily  heterogeneous.  The  descendants  of  the 
colonists  sent  by  Julius  Caesar,  the  Greeks  who  were  attracted 
to  the  principal  city  of  their  own  country,  Jews  and  strangers 
from  all  parts  of  the  Roman  Empire,  were  here  congregated. 
The  predominant  character  of  the  people  was  doubtless  Grecian, 


Vlli  INTRODUCTION. 

The  majority  of  the  converts  to  Christianity  were  probably 
Greeks,  as  distinguished  from  Jews.  (See  ch.  12,  1.)  In  ail 
ages  the  Greeks  were  distinguished  by  their  fondness  for 
speculation,  their  vanity  and  love  of  pleasure,  and  their  party 
spirit.  A  church  composed  of  people  of  these  characteristics, 
with  a  large  infusion  of  Jewish  converts,  educated  in  the  midst 
of  refined  heathenism,  surrounded  by  all  the  incentives  to  in 
dulgence,  taught  to  consider  pleasure,  if  not  the  chief  good, 
yet  in  any  form  a  good,  plied  on  every  hand  by  philoso 
phers  and  false  teachers,  might  be  expected  to  exhibit  the 
very  characteristics  which  in  this  epistle  are  brought  so  clearly 
into  view. 

Their  party  spirit.  "  One  said  I  am  of  Paul,  another  I  am 
of  Apollos ;  another  I  of  Cephas,  another  I  of  Christ."  Much 
ingenuity  and  learning  have  been  expended  in  determining 
the  nature  of  these  party  divisions.  What  may  be  considered 
as  more  or  less  satisfactorily  determined  is,  1.  That  there 
were  factions  in  the  church  of  Corinth  which  called  themselves 
by  the  names  above  mentioned,  and  therefore  that  the  names 
themselves  give  a  clew  to  the  character  of  the  parties.  The 
idea  that  the  names  of  Paul,  Apollos  and  Cephas  are  used 
figuratively,  when  other  teachers  were  really  intended,  is  so 
unnatural  and  has  so  little  to  sustain  it,  that  it  is  now  almost 
universally  repudiated.  2.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
those  who  called  themselves  by  the  name  of  Paul,  or  made 
themselves  his  partisans,  were  in  the  main  the  Gentile  con 
verts ;  men  brought  up  free  from  the  bondage  of  the  Mosaic 
law,  and  free  from  the  influence  of  Jewish  ideas  and  usages. 
They  were  disposed  to  press  to  extremes  the  liberty  of  the 
gospel,  to  regard  as  indifferent  things  in  themselves  sinful,  and 
to  treat  without  respect  the  scruples  of  the  weak.  3.  The  in 
timate  relations  which  subsisted  between  Paul  and  Apollos,  as 
indicated  in  these  epistles,  authorizes  the  inference  that  it  was 
not  on  doctrinal  grounds  that  the  followers  of  the  latter  dif 
fered  from  those  of  the  former.  It  is  probable  that  those  who 
objected  to  Paul  that  he  did  not  preach  with  the  "  wisdom  of 


INTRODUCTION.  IX 

words"  were  those  attracted  by  the  eloquence  of  Apollos. 
4.  It  is  scarcely  less  certain  that  those  who  said  "  We  are  of 
Peter  "  were  the  Judaizers,  as  Peter  was  specially  the  apostle 
of  the  circumcision.  There  is  no  evidence,  however,  from  this 
epistle,  that  the  leaders  of  this  party  had  attempted  to  intro 
duce  into  Corinth  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  law.  But 
they  were  determined  opponents  of  the  apostle  Paul.  They 
had  come  to  Corinth  with  letters  of  commendation  (2  Cor.  2, 
1.)  They  were  Hebrews  (2  Cor.  11,  22);  they  professed  to 
be  ministers  of  Christ  (ch.  11,  23) ;  they  were  false  apostles 
(oh.  11,  13) ;  the  ministers  of  Satan,  holding  the  word  of  God 
deceitfully.  These  men,  as  is  evident  from  the  defence  which 
the  apostle  makes  of  his  divine  commission  (1  Cor.  9,  1-3. 
2  Cor.  12,  11.  12),  called  in  question  his  apostleship,  probably 
on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  of  the  original  twelve.  On 
this  ground  also,  to  give  themselves  the  greater  authority, 
they  claimed  to  be  disciples  of  Peter,  who  was  the  first  of  the 
apostles.  They  also  accused  Paul  of  inconstancy  and  insinceri 
ty  (2  Cor.  1, 17-24).  In  short  they  stirred  up  against  him  all 
the  elements  of  discord  which  they  could  find  in  a  congrega 
tion  composed  of  such  incongruous  materials.  5.  With  regard 
to  those  who  said  We  are  of  Christ,  only  two  things  are  cer 
tain.  First,  that  they  were  as  much  to  blame  as  the  other 
parties.  It  was  in  no  Christian  spirit  that  they  set  up  their 
claim  to  be  of  Christ.  And  secondly,  that  they  assumed  to 
have  some  relation  to  Christ,  which  they  denied  to  others. 
Whether  it  was  because  they  had  seen  and  heard  him ;  or  be 
cause  they  claimed  connection  with  "  James,  the  brother  of 
the  Lord ; "  or  because  they  were  the  only  genuine  Christians, 
inasmuch  as  through  some  other  channel  than  the  apostles,  they 
had  derived,  as  they  pretended,  their  knowledge  of  the  gospel, 
is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  Billroth  and  Baur  regard  this  class 
as  identical  with  the  followers  of  Peter,  who  claimed  to  be  of 
Christ  because  Paul  was  no  apostle,  and  therefore  his  disciples 
were  not  "of  Christ."  According  to  this  view  there  were 
only  two,  instead  of  four,  parties  in  Corinth,  the  followers  of 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

Paul  and  Apollos  belonging  to  one  class.  This,  however,  does 
violence  to  the  plain  meaning  of  the  passage  in  1  Cor.  1,  12. 
These  neutrals  were  probably  the  worst  class  in  the  congrega 
tion,  as  is  commonly  the  case  with  those  who  claim  to  bo 
Christians  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 

Another  great  evil  in  the  Corinthian  church  was  the  viola 
tion  of  the  seventh  commandment  in  various  forms.  Educated 
as  we  are  under  the  light  of  the  gospel,  in  which  the  turpitude 
of  such  sins  is  clearly  revealed,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  appre 
ciate  correctly  the  state  of  feeling  in  Corinth  on  this  subject. 
Even  by  heathen  philosophers  offences  of  this  kind  were  re 
garded  as  scarcely  deserving  of  censure,  and  by  the  public 
sentiment  of  the  community  they  were  considered  altogether 
indifferent.  They  were  in  fact  so  associated  with  their  re 
ligious  rites  and  festivals  as  to  lose  their  character  as  immorali 
ties.  With  such  previous  training,  and  under  the  influence  of 
such  a  public  sentiment,  and  surrounded  by  all  incitements 
and  facilities  to  evil,  it  is  surely  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that 
many  of  the  Corinthians  should  take  the  ground  that  things 
of  this  class  belonged  to  the  same  category  with  questions  of 
food  (1  Cor.  6,  12.)  It  is  certain  from  numerous  passages  in 
these  epistles  that  the  church  of  Corinth  was  not  only  very 
remiss  in  the  exercise  of  discipline  for  such  matters,  but  also 
that  the  evil  was  widely  extended. 

Another  indication  of  the  latitudinarian  spirit  of  one  por 
tion  of  the  church  was  their  conduct  in  reference  to  the  sacri 
ficial  offerings  and  feasts  of  the  heathen.  They  had  been 
accustomed  not  only  freely  to  eat  meat  which  had  been  offered 
in  sacrifice  to  idols,  but  to  attend  the  feasts  held  in  the  tem 
ples.  As  they  were  told  as  Christians  that  the  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean  meats  was  abolished,  and  that  the 
gods  of  the  heathen  were  nothing,  they  insisted  on  their  right 
to  continue  in  their  accustomed  habits.  This  gave  rise  to  great 
scandal.  The  stricter  portion  of  the  church,  whether  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  regarded  all  use  of  sacrificial  meat  as  involving  in 
some  form  connection  with  idolatry.  This,  therefore,  was  one 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

of  the  questions  of  conscience  which  was  answered  differently 
by  different  parties,  and  no  doubt  contributed  to  promote  the 
divisions  existing  among  them. 

The  turbulent  and  independent  spirit  of  the  people  also 
was  conspicuously  manifested  in  their  public  assemblies.  In 
stead  of  following  the  instructions  of  the  apostles  and  the 
usages  of  the  church,  they  converted  the  Lord's  Supper  into  a 
disorderly  common  meal ;  in  violation  of  the  public  sentiment 
and  the  custom  of  all  the  churches,  they  allowed  women  to 
appear  unveiled  in  their  congregations  and  to  speak  in  public ; 
and  in  the  spirit  of  emulation  and  ostentation  they  exercised 
their  gifts  of  prophecy  and  speaking  with  tongues,  without 
regard  to  order  or  edification.  Besides  all  this,  under  the 
influence  probably  of  the  heathen  philosophy,  some  among 
them  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  thus  sub 
verted  the  very  foundation  of  the  gospel. 

Such  is  the  picture  presented  in  this  epistle  of  one  of  the 
most  flourishing  churches  of  the  apostolic  age,  drawn  not  by 
an  enemy  but  by  the  apostle  himself.  With  all  this,  however, 
there  were  not  only  many  pure  and  exemplary  members  of  the 
church,  but  much  faith  and  piety  even  in  those  who  were 
more  or  less  chargeable  with  these  disorders.  Paul  therefore 
addressed  them  as  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  thanks  God  for 
the  grace  which  he  had  bestowed  upon  them,  and  expresses 
his  confidence  that  God  would  preserve  them  blameless  until 
the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  This  shows  us  how  the  gospel 
works  in  heathen  lands.  It  is  like  leaven  hid  in  a  measure  of 
meal.  It  is  long  before  the  whole  mass  is  leavened.  It  does 
not  transform  the  character  of  men  or  the  state  of  society  in  a 
moment ;  but  it  keeps  up  a  continual  conflict  with  evil  until 
it  is  finally  overcome. 

§4.    DATE.     CONTENTS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

The  date  of  this  epistle  is  determined  by  its  contents.  It 
was  evidently  written  from  Ephesus  towards  the  close  ot 


Xii  INTRODUCTION. 

Paul's  protracted  sojourn  in  that  city.  He  tells  the  Corinthi 
ans  that  he  was  to  visit  Macedonia,  and  would  then  come  to 
Corinth,  but  that  he  must  tarry  in  Ephesus  till  Pentecost 
(ch.  16,  5-8.)  Comp.  also  v.  19,  which  agrees  with  the  account 
given  in  Acts  19,  20.  20, 1.  2.  After  the  uproar  excited  by 
Demetrius,  Paul,  as  we  learn  from  these  passages,  did  go  to 
Macedonia  and  then  to  Greece ;  and  thence,  with  the  contri 
butions  of  the  saints,  to  Jerusalem.  Accordingly,  in  his  epis 
tle  to  the  Romans,  written  from  Corinth,  he  says,  "  Now  I  go 
unto  Jerusalem  to  minister  to  the  saints.  For  it  hath  pleased 
them  of  Macedonia  and  of  Achaia  to  make  a  certain  contribu 
tion  for  the  poor  saints  which  are  in  Jerusalem."  (Rom.  15, 
25.  26.)  These  and  other  data  seem  to  fix  the  date  of  the 
epistle  about  the  year  57,  or  five  years  after  his  first  visit  to 
Corinth.  There  are  no  indications  of  a  later  date,  unless  any 
one  should  find  it  hard  to  believe  that  Paul  had  already  suf 
fered  all  that  is  recorded  in  2  Cor.  11,  23-28.  Five  times  he 
had  received  of  the  Jews  forty  stripes  save  one,  thrice  he  had 
been  beaten  with  rods,  once  he  was  stoned,  thrice  he  had  suf 
fered  shipwreck,  a  day  and  a  night  he  had  been  in  the  deep. 
These  and  the  other  dangers  there  enumerated  seem  enough 
to  fill  a  lifetime.  But  this  only  shows  how  small  a  part  of  the 
labours  and  sufferings  of  the  apostles  is  recorded  in  the  Acts. 
It  furnishes  no  sufficient  reason  for  referring  this  epistle  to  a 
later  period  of  the  apostle's  career. 

As  this  epistle  was  written  to  correct  the  various  disorders 
which  had  arisen  in  the  Corinthian  church  after  the  apostle's 
departure,  and  to  meet  the  calumnies  and  objections  of  the 
false  teachers  by  whom  the  peace  of  the  church  had  been  dis 
turbed  and  his  own  authority  called  in  question,  its  contents 
are  to  a  corresponding  degree  diversified.  The  apostle  begins 
with  the  assertion  of  his  divine  commission,  and  with  the  usual 
salutation,  ch.  1,  1-3.  Then  follows  the  general  introduction 
to  the  epistle,  commendatory  and  conciliatory  in  its  tone  and 
intention,  1,  4-9.  He  then  introduces  the  subject  of  the  party 
divisions  by  which  the  church  was  disturbed,  and  showed  how 


INTRODUCTION.  Xlll 

inconsistent  they  were  with  the  relation  which  believers  bear 
to  Christ  and  to  each  other ;  and  how  careful  he  had  been  to 
avoid  all  appearance  of  desiring  to  be  a  party  leader  among 
them.  He  had  even  abstained  from  baptizing  lest  any  should 
say  he  baptized  in  his  own  name,  ch.  1,  10-16.  He  had  bap 
tized  only  a  few  among  them,  for  his  business  was  to  preach 
rather  than  to  baptize. 

As  one  class  of  his  opponents  directed  their  attacks  against 
his  want  of  philosophy  and  rhetorical  refinement  as  a  preacher, 
he  for  a  time  leaves  the  subject  of  their  party  contentions,  and 
addresses  himself  to  these  objections.  He  tells  them  that  he 
did  not  preach  the  wisdom  of  this  world,  because  God  had 
pronounced  it  to  be  folly,  because  all  experience  proved  it  to 
be  inefficacious  to  bring  men  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  be 
cause  God  had  determined  to  save  men  by  the  preaching  of 
Christ  as  crucified,  because  their  history  showed  that  it  was 
not  the  wise  who  embraced  the  gospel,  but  God  so  adminis 
tered  his  grace  as  to  force  all  men  to  acknowledge  that  it  was 
of  him,  and  not  of  themselves,  that  they  became  united  to 
Christ,  and  thereby  partakers  of  the  true  wisdom,  as  well  as 
of  righteousness,  holiness  and  redemption,  1,  17-31.  Such 
being  the  case,  he  had  come  among  them,  not  with  the  self- 
confidence  of  a  philosopher,  but  as  a  simple  witness  to  bear 
testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  Son  of  God  had  died  for  our  re 
demption.  Under  a  deep  sense  of  his  insufficiency,  he  spoke 
to  them  with  fear  and  trembling,  relying  for  success  not  on 
his  own  powers  of  persuasion,  but  wholly  on  the  power  with 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  accompanied  the  truth ;  knowing  that 
the  true  foundation  of  faith  was  not  argument,  but  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit  with  and  by  the  truth,  2,  1-5.  Howbeit,  although 
he  repudiated  human  wisdom,  the  gospel  which  he  preached 
was  the  true  wisdom,  a  system  of  truth  which  God  had  made 
known,  which  was  far  above  the  power  of  man  to  discover, 
but  which  the  Spirit  of  God  had  revealed.  This  divine  wis 
dom  he  preached  not  in  the  words  which  the  rhetorician  pre 
scribed,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  dictated.  Both  the  truths 


3QV  INTRODUCTION. 

which  he  taught,  and  the  words  which  he  used  in  commurn- 
eating  that  truth  were  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  any 
man  neglected  what  was  thus  presented,  the  fault  was  neither 
in  the  doctrines  taught  nor  in  the  mode  in  which  they  were 
exhibited,  but  in  the  objector.  The  things  of  the  Spirit  must 
be  spiritually  discerned,  2,  6-16. 

After  this  defence  of  his  mode  of  preaching  the  apostle  re 
sumes  the  subject  of  their  divisions.  He  had  preached  to 
them  in  as  high  a  strain  as  they  were  able  to  bear.  They 
were  but  babes  in  Christ  and  had  to  be  fed  with  milk.  That 
they  were  in  this  low  stage  of  the  Christian  life  was  manifest 
from  their  contentions,  3,  1-4.  As  these  contentions  had 
reference  to  their  religious  teachers,  Paul  endeavours  to  cor 
rect  the  evil  by  showing  what  ministers  really  are.  First,  he 
says,  they  are  mere  instruments, — servants ;  men  sent  to  de 
liver  a  message  or  perform  a  given  work ;  not  the  authors  of 
the  system  of  truth  which  they  taught.  All  authority  and 
efficiency  are  in  God.  Secondly,  ministers  are  one.  They 
teach  the  same  doctrine,  they  have  the  same  object,  and  stand 
in  the  same  relation  to  God.  Thirdly,  every  one  will  have  to 
answer  for  his  work.  If  he  attempt  to  lay  any  other  founda 
tion  than  Christ,  he  is  not  a  Christian  minister.  If  on  that 
foundation  he  builds  with  sound  doctrine,  he  shall  receive  a 
reward ;  if  with  false  doctrine,  he  shall  be  punished.  Fourth 
ly,  human  wisdom  in  this  matter  must  be  renounced.  A  man 
must  become  a  fool  in  order  to  be  truly  wise.  Fifthly,  such 
being  the  relation  of  ministers  to  the  church,  the  people  should 
not  place  their  confidence  in  them,  or  regard  themselves  as 
belonging  to  their  ministers,  since  all  things  were  subordinate 
to  the  people  of  God,  ministers  as  well  as  other  things,  3,  5-20. 
Sixthly,  ministers  being  stewards,  whose  office  it  is  to  dispense 
the  truth  of  God,  fidelity  on  their  part  is  the  great  thing  to 
be  demanded.  So  far  as  he  was  himself  concerned  it  wTas  a 
small  matter  what  they  thought  of  his  fidelity,  as  the  only  final 
judge  was  the  Lord.  The  true  character  of  the  ministerial 
office  he  had  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  himself  and  Apollos, 


INTRODUCTION.  X\ 

that  they  might  learn  to  estimate  ministers  aright,  and  not 
contend  about  them.  He  then  contrasts  himself  as  suffering, 
labouring  and  despised,  with  the  false  teachers  and  their  fol 
lowers,  and  exhorts  the  Corinthians  to  be  followers  of  him, 
and  intimates  his  apprehension  that  he  would  have  to  come  to 
them  with  a  rod,  4, 1-21.  This  is  the  end  of  that  portion  of  the 
epistle  which  relates  to  the  divisions  existing  in  the  church. 

The  second  evil  which  it  was  the  design  of  this  epistle  to 
correct,  was  the  remissness  of  the  Corinthians  in  the  exercise 
of  church  discipline.  Fornication  was  not  only  tolerated,  but 
they  allowed  a  man  who  had  married  his  father's  wife  to  retain 
his  standing  in  the  church.  Paul  here  interferes,  and  in  the 
exercise  of  his  apostolical  authority,  not  only  pronounces  on  this 
incestuous  person  a  sentence  of  excommunication,  but  delivers 
him  to  Satan,  5,1-5.  He  enforces  on  the  church  the  general  duty 
to  exclude  immoral  members  from  their  communion,  5,  6-13. 

Thirdly,  the  practice  which  some  of  them  had  introduced 
of  going  to  law  before  heathen  magistrates,  he  severely  con 
demns,  6,  1-11.  Fourthly,  the  principle  that  all  things  are 
lawful,  which  the  apostle  had  often  uttered  in  reference  to  the 
ceremonial  distinction  between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  some 
of  the  Corinthians  had  perverted  as  an  argument  to  prove  that 
fornication  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  The  apostle  shows  the 
fallacy  of  this  argument,  and  assures  them  that  no  sin  is  so  great 
a  desecration  of  the  body,  or  more  fatal  to  its  union  with  Christ, 
and  participation  of  the  benefits  of  redemption,  6,  12-20. 

Fifthly,  marriage  was  another  subject  about  which  the 
minds  of  the  Corinthians  were  disturbed,  and  on  which  they 
sought  the  advice  of  the  apostle.  They  wished  him  to  tell 
them  whether  marriage  was  obligatory,  or  lawful,  or  expedi 
ent  ;  whether  divorce  or  separation  was  allowable  ;  and  espe 
cially  whether  a  Christian  could  consistently  remain  in  the 
conjugal  relation  with  a  heathen.  All  these  questions  are  an 
swered  in  the  seventh  chapter,  in  which  the  apostle  lays  down 
the  principles  which  are  applicable  to  all  cases  of  conscience  in 
reference  to  that  subject,  7,  1-40. 


Xv  INTRODUCTION. 

Sixthly :  Surrounded  as  the  Corinthians  were  by  idolatry, 
whose  institutions  pervaded  all  the  relations  of  society,  it  be 
came  a  question  how  far  Christians  might  conform  to  the 
usages  connected  with  heathen  worship.  The  most  important 
question  was,  whether  it  was  lawful  to  eat  meat  which  had 
been  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols.  On  this  point  Paul  agreed 
in  principle  with  those  who  took  the  affirmative  side  in  this 
controversy.  He  admitted  that  the  idols  were  nothing,  and 
that  what  was  offered  them  was  nothing,  i.  e.  received  no  new 
character  from  its  having  been  a  sacrifice,  and  that  the  use  of 
it  involved  no  communion  with  idolatry.  A  regard,  however, 
to  the  spiritual  welfare  of  others,  should  lead  them  to  abstain 
from  the  use  of  such  meat  under  circumstances  which  might 
encourage  others  to  act  against  their  own  convictions,  8, 1-13. 

In  exhorting  them  to  exercise  self-denial  for  the  benefit  of 
others,  Paul  urged  them  to  nothing  which  he  was  not  himself 
willing  to  do.  Although  he  enjoyed  all  the  liberty  which  be 
longs  to  other  Christians,  and  had  all  the  rights  belonging  to 
ministers  or  apostles,  he  had  abstained  from  claiming  them 
whenever  the  good  of  the  church  required.  For  example,  al 
though  entitled  on  all  the  grounds  of  justice,  usage,  and  of 
divine  appointment,  to  be  supported  by  those  to  whom  he 
preached,  he  had  sustained  himself  by  the  labour  of  his  own 
hands ;  and  so  far  as  the  Corinthians  were  concerned,  he  was 
determined  still  to  do  so.  He  was  determined  that  his  ene 
mies  in  Corinth  should  not  have  the  slightest  pretext  for  ac 
cusing  him  of  preaching  the  gospel  from  mercenary  motives, 
9,  1-18.  This,  however,  was  not  a  solitary  instance.  In  all 
things  indifferent  he  had  accommodated  himself  to  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  to  the  strong  and  to  the  weak.  He  had  exercised 
the  self-denial  and  self-control  which  every  combatant  in  the 
ancient  games  was  obliged  to  submit  to  who  hoped  to  win  the 
prize,  9, 19-27.  What  he  did,  other  Christians  must  do.  The 
history  of  the  church  shows  that  the  want  of  such  self-denial 
was  fatal  even  to  those  who  were  the  most  highly  favoured. 
The  ancient  Israelites  had  been  delivered  out  of  Egypt  by  the 


INTRODUCTION. 

direct  and  manifest  intervention  of  God ;  they  had  been  mira 
culously  guided  and  miraculously  fed  in  the  wilderness,  and 
yet  the  great  majority  perished.  Their  experience  should  be 
a  warning  to  the  Corinthians  not  to  be  overcome  by  similar 
temptations,  and  especially  to  be  on  their  guard  against  idola 
try,  10,  1-13.  Their  danger  in  this  respect  was  very  great. 
They  knew  that  the  Grecian  deities  were  imaginary  beings  ; 
they  knew  that  things  offered  to  those  deities  had  no  contami 
nating  power ;  they  knew  that  it  was,  under  some  circumstan 
ces,  lawiul  to  eat  meat  which  had  been  thus  offered ;  they 
were,  therefore,  in  danger  of  being  led  to  eat  it  under  circum 
stances  which  would  render  them  guilty  of  idolatry.  As  they 
were  constantly  exposed  to  have  such  meat  set  before  them, 
it  became  a  matter  of  the  highest  importance  to  know  when 
it  might,  and  when  it  might  not  be  eaten  with  impunity.  The 
general  principle  which  the  apostle  lays  down  on  this  subject 
is,  that  all  participation  in  the  religious  services  of  a  people, 
brings  us  into  communion  with  them  as  worshippers,  and 
therefore  with  the  objects  of  their  worship.  Consequently,  to 
eat  of  heathen  sacrifices  under  circumstances  which  gave  a  re 
ligious  character  to  the  act,  was  idolatry.  It  is  not  necessary 
that  they  themselves  should  view  the  matter  in  this  light. 
They  might  worship  idols,  and  incur  the  guilt  and  penalty  of 
idolatry,  without  knowing  or  suspecting  that  they  did  so.  To 
prove  this  he  appealed  to  their  own  convictions.  They  knew 
that  all  who  came  to  the  Lord's  table  did  thereby  join  in  the 
worship  of  Christ ;  and  that  all  who  attended  the  altars  of  the 
Jews,  and  eat  of  the  sacrifices,  did  thereby  unite  in  the  wor 
ship  of  Jehovah.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  those  who  took  part 
in  the  religious  festivals  of  the  heathen,  joined  in  the  worship 
of  idols.  And  although  the  idols  were  nothing,  still  the  wor 
ship  of  them  was  apostacy  from  God,  and  the  worship  of  devils, 
10,  14-22.  On  the  other  hand,  to  eat  of  these  sacrifices  under 
circumstances  which  precluded  the  idea  of  a  religious  service, 
was  a  matter  of  indifference.  Therefore,  if  meat  offered  to 
idols  was  exposed  for  sale  in  the  market,  or  met  with  at 
private  tables,  it  might  be  eaten  with  impunity,  10,  23-33. 


XV111  INTRODUCTION. 

Seventhly:  grave  abuses  had  been  introduced  into  the 
celebration  of  public  worship  at  Corinth.  The  women  spoke 
in  public  unveiled ;  the  Lord's  supper  was  degraded  into  a 
common  meal,  and  the  use  of  spiritual  gifts  gave  rise  to  great 
disorder.  With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  abuses,  the 
apostle  teaches  that,  as  by  the  divine  constitution  the  woman 
is  subordinate  to  the  man,  and  as  the  veil  was  the  conven 
tional  symbol  of  that  subordination,  for  a  woman  to  appear 
in  public  unveiled,  was  to  renounce  her  position,  and  to  forfeit 
the  respect  due  to  her  sex,  8,  1-16.  As  to  the  Lord's  supper, 
it  seems  probable  that  it  was,  in  Corinth  at  least,  connected 
with  an  ordinary  meal  in  which  all  the  Christians  met  at  a 
common  table.  For  this  meal  each  one  brought  what  provi 
sions  he  was  able  to  contribute.  Instead,  however,  of  its 
being  a  feast  of  brotherly  love,  the  rich  ate  by  themselves, 
and  left  their  poorer  brethren  no  part  in  the  feast.  To  cor 
rect  this  abuse,  destructive  of  the  whole  intent  of  the  sacra 
ment,  the  apostle  reminds  his  readers  that  he  had  communi 
cated  to  them  the  account  of  the  original  institution  of  the 
ordinance,  as  he  himself  had  received  it  of  the  Lord.  Accord 
ing  to  that  institution,  it  was  designed  not  to  satisfy  hunger, 
but  to  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ.  It  was  therefore  a 
religious  service  of  a  peculiarly  solemn  character.  The  bread 
and  wine  being  the  appointed  symbols  of  his  body  and  blood, 
to  eat  and  drink  in  a  careless,  irreverent  manner,  making  no 
distinctions  between  the  consecrated  elements  and  ordinary 
food,  was  to  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord, 
11,  17-34. 

With  regard  to  spiritual  gifts,  the  apostle,  after  reminding 
the  Corinthians  that  the  possession  of  these  gifts  was  one  of 
the  distinctive  marks  of  their  Christian  as  distinguished  from 
their  heathen  state,  teaches  that  all  these  extraordinary  mani 
festations  of  the  Holy  Ghost  have  a  common  origin ;  that 
they  were  all  given,  not  for  the  exaltation  of  those  who  re 
ceived  them,  but  for  the  edification  of  the  church,  and  that 
they  were  distributed  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God. 


INTRODUCTION.  XIX 

He  illustrates  all  these  points  by  a  reference  to  the  human 
body.  As  the  body  is  one,  being  animated  by  one  soul ;  so 
the  church  is  one,  being  animated  by  one  Spirit.  And  as  the 
vital  principle  manifests  itself  in  different  forms  in  the  different 
members  of  the  body,  for  the  common  good  ;  and  as  the  dif 
ferent  members  have  their  office  assigned  to  them  by  God, 
and  are  mutually  dependent,  being  bound  together  as  a  com 
mon  life,  so  that  one  part  cannot  be  injured  or  honoured, 
without  all  sharing  in  the  joy  or  sorrow,  so  it  is  in  the  church. 
There  should,  therefore,  be  no  discontent  or  envy  on  the  part 
of  those  who  have  subordinate  gifts,  and  no  pride  or  ostenta 
tion  on  the  part  of  those  more  highly  favoured ;  especially  as 
the  more  showy  gifts  were  not  the  most  useful.  So  far,  there 
fore,  as  their  gifts  were  objects  of  desire,  they  should  seek 
those  which  were  the  most  useful,  12,  1-31. 

There  was,  however,  one  thing  more  important  than  any 
of  these  gifts,  and  without  which  all  others,  whether  faith, 
knowledge,  or  the  power  to  work  miracles,  would  be  of  no 
avail ;  and  that  is  Love.  The  love  which  renders  its  pos 
sessor  meek,  kind,  humble,  disinterested,  forbearing,  and  en 
during.  This  is  the  highest  grace,  which  is  to  endure  when 
all  these  extraordinary  endowments  have  passed  away,  13,  1- 
13.  The  two  gifts  which  were  most  conspicuous  in  the  church 
of  Corinth,  were  those  of  prophecy,  and  the  gift  of  speaking 
in  foreign  tongues.  The  latter  being  the  more  wonderful, 
and  exciting  more  admiration  than  the  other,  was  unduly  cov 
eted  and  ostentatiously  exercised.  The  apostle  shows  that  it 
was  very  subordinate  to  the  gift  of  prophecy,  because  the 
prophets  were  inspired  to  communicate,  in  an  intelligible  man 
ner,  divine  truth  to  the  edification  of  the  church.  Whereas, 
their  speaking  with  tongues,  where  the  language  they  used 
was  not  understood,  could  only  edify  themselves,  14,  1-40. 

Eighthly  :  certain  persons  in  Corinth  denied  the  Resurrec 
tion.  Whatever  were  the  grounds  on  which  this  doctrine 
was  rejected,  the  apostle  shows  that  its  denial  involved  the 
destruction  of  the  gospel,  for  if  the  dead  cannot  rise,  Christ  is 


XX  INTEODUCTION. 

not  risen ;  and  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  we  have  no  Saviour. 
He  therefore  proves,  first,  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  then  shows  that  his  resurrection  secures  that  of 
his  people,  15,  1-36  ;  and  finally,  that  the  objection  that  ma 
terial  bodies  such  as  we  now  have,  are  unsuitable  to  the  future 
state,  is  founded  on  the  false  assumption,  that  matter  cannot 
be  so  refined  as  to  furnish  material  for  bodies  adapted  to  the 
soul  in  its  highest  state  of  existence,  15,  36-58.  The  sixteenth 
chapter  is  devoted  to  directions  relative  to  the  collection  for 
the  poor,  and  to  certain  admonitions  and  salutations. 


§  5.    IMTOKTANCE  OF  THIS  EPISTLE. 

Paul's  relation  to  the  church  in  Corinth  was  in  some  re 
spects  peculiar.  He  was  not  only  the  founder  of  the  congre 
gation,  but  he  continued  in  the  closest  relation  to  it.  It 
excited  his  solicitude,  called  for  the  wisest  management,  tried 
his  patience  and  forbearance,  rewarded  him  at  times  by  signal 
evidence  of  affection  and  obedience,  and  filled  him  with  hopes 
of  its  extended  and  healthful  influence.  His  love  for  that 
church  was  therefore  of  special  intensity.  It  was  analogous  to 
tfiat  of  a  father  for  a  promising  son  beset  with  temptations, 
whose  character  combined  great  excellencies  with  great  de 
fects.  The  epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  therefore,  reveal  to  us 
more  of  the  personal  character  of  the  apostle  than  any  of  his 
«ther  letters.  They  show  him  to  us  as  a  man,  as  a  pastor,  as 
a  counsellor,  as  in  conflict  not  only  with  heretics,  but  with 
personal  enemies.  They  reveal  his  wisdom,  his  zeal,  his  for 
bearance,  his  liberality  of  principle  and  practice  in  all  matters 
of  indifference,  his  strictness  in  all  matters  of  right  and  wrong, 
his  humility,  and  perhaps  above  all,  his  unwearied  activity  and 
wonderful  endurance. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  gives  a  special  inter 
est  to  these  epistles.  They  show  more  clearly  than  any  other 
portion  of  the  New  Testament,  Christianity  hi  conflict  with 


INTRODUCTION.  XXI 

heathenism.  We  see  what  method  Paul  adopted  in  founding 
the  church  in  the  midst  of  a  refined  and  corrupt  people  ;  how 
he  answered  questions  of  conscience  arising  out  of  the  rela 
tions  of  Christians  to  the  heathen  around  them.  The  cases 
may  never  occur  again,  but  the  principles  involved  in  their 
decision,  are  of  perpetual  obligation,  and  serve  as  lights  to  the 
church  in  all  ages.  Principles  relating  to  church  discipline,  to 
social  relations  and  intercourse,  to  public  worship,  the  nature 
of  the  church,  and  of  the  sacraments,  are  here  unfolded,  not 
in  an  abstract  form,  so  much  as  in  their  application.  These 
epistles,  therefore,  in  reference  to  all  practical  measures  in  the 
establishment  of  the  church  among  the  heathen,  and  in  its 
conduct  in  Christian  lands,  are  among  the  most  important 
portions  of  the  word  of  God. 


I.  CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Salutation,  vs.  1-3.  Introduction,  vs.  4-9.  The  divisions  which  existed  in 
the  Church  at  Corinth,  vs.  10-16.  Defence  of  the  Apostle's  mode  of 
preaching,  vs.  17-31. 

Introduction  to  the  Epistle.     Vs.  1-9. 

PAUL  declares  himself  to  be  a  divinely  appointed  messenger 
of  Christ,  v.  1.  In  this  character  he  addresses  the  churclTat 
Corinth,  as  those  who  were  sanctified  in  Christ,  and  called  to 
be  saints.  He  includes  in  his  salutation  all  the  worshippers  of 
Christ  in  that  vicinity,  v.  2 ;  and  invokes  upon  them  the  bless 
ings  of  grace  and  peace,  v.  3. 

The  introduction  is  as  usual  commendatory.  He  thanks 
God  for  the  favour  shown  to  the  Corinthians ;  for  the  various 
gifts  by  which  the  gospel  had  been  confirmed  among  them, 
and  by  which  they  were  placed  on  a  full  equality  with  the 
most  favoured  churches,  vs.  4-7.  He  expresses  his  confidence, 
founded  on  the  fidelity  of  God,  that  they  would  be  preserved 
from  apostasy  until  the  day  of  the  Lord,  vs.  8,  9. 

1.  Paul,  called  (to  be)   an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ 
through  the  will  of  God,  and  Sosthenes  (our)  brother. 
Paul,  so  called  after  his  conversion  and  the  commence. 


2  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  1.2. 

ment  of  his  labours  among  the  Gentiles.  His  Jewish  name 
was  Saul.  It  was  common  for  the  Jews  to  bear  one  name 
among  their  own  people,  and  another  among  foreigners. 

Called  (to  be)  an  apostle,  that  is,  appointed  an  apostle. 
The  apostleship  being  an  office,  it  could  not  be  assumed  at 
pleasure.  Appointment  by  competent  authority  was  absolute 
ly  indispensable.  The  wrord  apostle  means  literally  a  messen 
ger,  and  then  a  missionary,  or  one  sent  to  preach  the  gospel. 
In  its  strict  official  sense  it  is  applied  only  to  the  immediate 
messengers  of  Christ,  the  infallible  teachers  of  his  religion  and 
founders  of  his  church.  In  calling  himself  an  apostle  Paul 
claims  divine  authority  derived  immediately  from  Christ. 

By  the  wiU  of  God,  that  is,  by  divine  authority.  Paul 
was  made  an  apostle  neither  by  popular  election,  nor  by  con 
secration  by  those  who  were  apostles  before  him ;  but  by  imme 
diate  appointment  from  God.  On  this  point,  see  his  explicit 
declaration,  Gal.  1,  1. 

And  Sosthenes  (our)  brother.  In  the  Greek  it  is  the  bro 
ther.  He  was  a  brother  well  known  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
probably  one  of  the  messengers  sent  by  them  to  the  apostle, 
or  whom  they  knew  to  be  with  him.  In  Acts  18,  17  a  man 
by  this  name  is  mentioned  as  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  in 
Corinth,  and  a  leader  of  those  who  arraigned  Paul  before  the 
judgment  seat  of  Gallic.  This  identity  of  name  is  not  a  suf 
ficient  proof  that  the  person  was  the  same,  especially  as  the 
name  was  a  common  one.  The  companions  of  the  apostles, 
whom  he  associates  with  himself  in  his  salutations  to  the 
churches,  are  not  thereby  placed  in  the  position  of  equality  of 
office  and  authority  with  the  apostle.  On  the  contrary,  they 
are  uniformly  distinguished  in  these  respects  from  the  writer 
of  the  epistles.  Thus  it  is  "  Paul  the  apostle,"  but  "  Sosthenes 
the  brother  • "  or,  "  Paul  the  apostle  and  Timothy  the  brother," 
Col.  1,1,  and  elsewhere.  They  are  associated  in  the  saluta 
tion,  not  in  the  epistle.  Very  probably  Sosthenes  was  the 
amanuensis  of  Paul  in  this  instance,  and  Timothy  in  others. 

2.  Unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  to 
them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  (to  be) 
saints,  with  all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  both  theirs  and  ours. 

To  the  church  of  God.  The  word  church  is  used  in  Scrip 
ture  as  a  collective  term  for  the  people  of  God,  considered  as 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  2.  3 

called  out  from  the  world.  Sometimes  it  means  the  whole 
number  of  God's  people,  as  when  it  is  said,  Christ  loved  the 
church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  Eph.  5,  25.  Sometimes  it 
means  the  people  of  God  as  a  class,  as  when  Paul  said,  he  per 
secuted  the  church  of  God,  Gal.  1,  13.  Sometimes  it  means 
the  professing  Christians  of  any  one  place,  as  when  mention  is 
made  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  or  Corinth.  Any 
number,  however  small,  of  professing  Christians  collectively 
considered  may  be  called  a  church.  Hence  we  hear  of  the 
church  in  the  house  of  Philemon,  and  in  the  house  of  Aquila 
and  Priscilla,  Rom.  16,  5.  It  is  called  the  church  of  God,  be 
cause  it  belongs  to  him.  He  selects  and  calls  its  members, 
and,  according  to  Acts,  20,  28,  it  is  his,  because  he  has  bought 
it  with  his  blood. 

To  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  is  ex 
planatory  of  the  preceding  clauses,  and  teaches  us  the  nature 
of  the  church.  It  consists  of  the  sanctified.  The  word  (dyia£o>) 
translated  to  sanctify,  means  to  cleanse.  And  as  sin  is  present 
ed  under  the  twofold  aspect  of  guilt  and  pollution,  to  sanctify, 
or  to  cleanse  from  sin,  may  mean  either  to  expiate  guilt  by 
an  atonement,  or  to  renew  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  used  for 
expiation  ^by  sacrifice  in  Heb.  2,  11.  10, 14.  13,  12,  and  else 
where.  The  word  also  means  to  render  sacred  by  consecrat 
ing  any  person  or  thing  to  the  service  of  God.  In  the  present 
case  all  these  ideas  may  be  united.  The  church  consists  of 
those  whose  guilt  is  expiated,  who  are  inwardly  holy,  and  who 
are  consecrated  to  God  as  his  peculiar  people. 

In  Christ  Jesus,  that  is,  in  virtue  of  union  with  him.  It 
is  only  in  him  that  we  are  partakers  of  these  inestimable  bless 
ings.  It  is  because  we  are  in  him  as  our  head  and  representa 
tive,  that  we  are  justified  by  his  righteousness;  and  it  is  be 
cause  we  are  in  him  as  a  branch  is  in  the  vine,  that  we  are 
purified  by  his  Spirit. 

Called  (to  be)  saints,  that  is,  by  the  effectual  call  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  constituted  saints.  "The  called"  always  mean 
the  effectually  called  as  distinguished  from  the  merely  exter 
nally  invited.  Saints.  The  original  word  (a-yios)  sometimes 
signifies  sacred,  set  apart  to  a  holy  use.  In  this  sense  the 
temple,  the  altar,  the  priests,  the  prophets,  and  the  whole 
theocratic  people,  are  called  holy.  In  the  New  Testament  the 
word  is  commonly  expressive  of  inward  purity,  or  consecra 
tion  of  the  soul  to  God.  Believers  are  saints  in  both  senses 
of  the  word;  they  are  inwardly  renewed,  and  outwardly  con- 


4  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  2. 

secrated.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  apos. 
tie  addresses  all  the  nominal  Christians  in  Corinth  as  saints 
and  as  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  they  were  all  true  be 
lievers,  or  that  those  terms  express  nothing  more  than  external 
consecration.  Men  are  uniformly  addressed  in  Scripture 
according  to  their  profession.  If  they  profess  to  be  saints, 
they  are  called  saints ;  if  they  profess  to  be  believers,  they  are 
called  believers ;  and  if  they  profess  to  be  members  of  the 
church,  they  are  addressed  as  really  belonging  to  it,  This 
passage  teaches  also,  as  Calvin  remarks,  the  useful  lesson  that 
a  body  may  be  very  corrupt  both  as  to  doctrine  and  practice, 
as  such  corruptions  undoubtedly  prevailed  even  in  Corinth,  and 
yet  it  may  be  properly  recognized  as  a  church  of  God.  Locus 
diligenter  observandus,  ne  reqtiiramus  in  hoc  mundo  ecclesiam 
omni  ruga  et  macula  carentem :  aut  protinus  abdicemus  hoc 
titulo  quemvis  coetum  in  quo  uon  omnia  votis  nostris  respon- 
deant. 

With  all  that  in  every  place  call  on  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  To  call  upon  the  name  of  any  one  is  to 
invoke  his  aid.  It  is  properly  used  for  religious  invocation. 
Compare  Acts  9,  14,  21,  and  22,  16.  Rom.  10,  12, 13.  2  Tim. 
2,  22.  To  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  is  to 
invoke  his  aid  as  Christ,  the  Messiah  predicted  by  the  prophets, 
and  as  our  almighty  and  sovereign  possessor  and  ruler.  It  is 
in  that  sense  Jesus  is  LOUD.  All  power  in  heaven  and  earth 
has  been  committed  unto  him ;  and  he  died  and  rose  again 
that  he  might  be  the  Lord  of  the  dead  and  of  the  living ;  that 
is,  that  he  might  acquire  that  peculiar  right  of  possession  in 
his  people  which  arises  from  his  having  purchased  them  with 
his  blood.  To  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  as  Lord  is  there 
fore  to  worship  him.  It  is  to  look  to  him  for  that  help  which 
God  only  can  give.  All  Christians,  therefore,  are  the  wor 
shippers  of  Christ.  And  every  sincere  worshipper  of  Christ 
is  a  true  Christian.  The  phrase  expresses  not  so  much  an  in 
dividual  act  of  invocation, *as  an  habitual  state  of  mind  and  its 
appropriate  expression. 

It  might  at  first  view  appear  from  this  clause  that  this 
epistle  was  addressed  not  only  to  the  church  in  Corinth,  but 
to  all  the  worshippers  of  Christ.  This  would  make  it  a  catho 
lic,  or  general  epistle,  which  it  is  not.  To  get  over  this  diffi 
culty  some  explain  the  connection  thus :  '  Called  to  be  saints 
together  with  all  who  call  upon  the  name  of  Christ : '  that  is, 
the  Corinthians  as  well  as  all  other  worshippers  of  Christ  were 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  2.3.  5 

called  to  be  saints.  A  reference  to  2  Cor.  1, 1  suggests  a  bet 
ter  explanation.  It  is  there  said,  "To  the  church  of  God 
which  is  at  Corinth  with  all  the  saints  which  are  in  all  Achaia." 
The  same  limitation  must  be  supplied  here.  This  epistle  was 
addressed  not  only  to  the  Christians  in  Corinth,  but  also  to 
all  their  brethren  in  the  province  of  which  Corinth  was  the 
capital. 

Theirs  and  ours.  These  words  admit  of  two  connections. 
They  may  be  connected  with  the  word  Lord,  '  Their  Lord  and 
ours.'  There  were  certain  persons  in  Corinth  who  claimed  a 
peculiar  relation  to  Christ,  and  said,  "  We  are  of  Christ ; "  to 
whom  Paul  said,  "  If  any  trust  to  himself  that  he  is  Christ's, 
let  him  of  himself  think  this  again,  as  he  is  Christ's,  so  are  we 
Christ's,"  2  Cor.  10,  7.  It  is  possible  that  he  may  have  in 
tended  at  the  very  opening  of  his  epistle,  to  rebuke  this  ex 
clusive  spirit,  and  to  remind  his  readers  that  Christ  is  the 
common  Lord  of  all  who  call  upon  him.  The  position  of  the 
words  however  renders  it  more  natural  to  understand  the 
apostle  to  mean,  "  in  every  place,  theirs  and  ours."  If  this 
be  the  true  construction,  then  the  sense  may  be,  '  In  every 
place  of  worship  theirs  and  ours.'  This  interpretation  sup 
poses  that  the  divisions  known  to  exist  in  Corinth  had  led  to 
the  separation  of  the  people  into  different  worshipping  assem 
blies.  There  is,  however,  not  only  no  evidence  that  such  ex 
ternal  separation  had  occurred,  but  clear  evidence  in  ch.  11, 
18  to  the  contrary.  Others  understand  the  sense  to  be,  'In 
every  place,  theirs  and  ours,'  i.  e.  'where  they  are,  and 
where  I  am.'  This  supposes  the  epistle  to  be  general.  A 
third  interpretation  has  been  proposed.  The  epistle  is  ad 
dressed  to  all  Christians  in  Corinth  and  Achaia,  wherever 
they  might  be.  Every  place  is  at  once  theirs  and  ours.  Their 
place  of  abode,  and  my  place  of  labour. 

3.  Grace  (be)  unto  you,  and  peace  from  God  our 
Father,  and  (from)  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Grace  is  favour,  and.  peace  its  fruits.  The  former  includes 
all  that  is  comprehended  in  the  love  of  God  as  exercised 
towards  sinners ;  and  the  latter  all  the  benefits  which  flow 
from  that  love.  All  good,  therefore,  whether  providential  or 
spiritual,  whether  temporal  or  eternal,  is  comprehended  in 
these  terms :  justification,  adoption  and  sanctification,  with  all 
the  benefits  which  either  accompany  or  flow  from  them. 


6  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  3.4.5. 

These  infinite  blessings  suppose  an  infinite  source ;  and  as  they 
are  ^ sought  no  less  from  Christ  than  from  God  the  Father, 
Christ  mnst  be  a  divine  person.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that 
God  is  called  our  Father,  and  Christ  our  Lord.  God  as  God 
has  not  only  created  us,  but  renewed  and  adopted  us.  God 
in  Christ  has  redeemed  us.  He  is  our  owner  and  sovereign, 
to  whom  our  allegiance  is  immediately  due;  who  reigns  in 
and  rules  over  us,  defending  us  from  all  his  and  our  enemies. 
This  is  the  peculiar  form  which  piety  assumes  under  the  gos 
pel.  All  Christians  regard  God  as  their  Father  and  Christ  as 
their  Lord.  His  person  they  love,  his  voice  they  obey,  and 
in  his  protection  they  trust. 

4.  I  thank  my  God  always  on  your  behalf,  for  the 
grace  of  God  which  is  given  you  by  Jesus  Christ. 

Paul  expresses  his  gratitude  for  the  grace  of  God  given  to 
the  Corinthians.  The  word  grace,  as  just  remarked,  means 
favour,  and  then  the  blessings  of  which  that  favour  is  the 
source ;  just  as  we  use  the  word  favour  sometimes  for  a  dis 
position  of  the  mind,  and  sometimes  for  gifts ;  as  when  we 
speak  of  receiving  favours.  The  latter  is  the  sense  of  the 
word  in  this  place. 

By  Christ  Jesus,  or  rather,  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  limits 
and  explains  the  kind  of  favours  to  which  the  apostle  refers. 
He  renders  thanks  for  those  gifts  which  God  had  bestowed 
upon  them  in  virtue  of  their  union  with  Christ.  The  fruits 
of  the  Spirit  are  the  blessings  referred  to.  These  inward 
spiritual  benefits  are  as  much  gifts  as  health  or  prosperity, 
and  are,  therefore,  as  properly  the  grounds  of  gratitude.  All 
virtues  are  graces,  gifts  of  the  grace  of  God. 

5.  That  in  every  thing  ye  are  enriched  by  him,  in 
all  utterance,  and  (in)  all  knowledge. 

This  verse  is  explanatory  of  the  preceding.  Paul  gives 
thanks  for  the  grace  which  they  had  received,  i.  e.  that  in 
every  thing  they  were  enriched.  In  every  thing  («/  TTO.VTL),  in 
every  respect  they  were  richly  endowed  with  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit.  In  all  utterance  and  in  all  knoidedge  /  that  is,  with 
all  the  gifts  of  utterance  and  knowledge.  Some  wrere  prophets, 
some  were  teachers,  some  had  the  gift  of  tongues.  These 
were  different  forms  of  the  gift  of  utterance.  In  all  /enow- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  5.6.7.  7 

ledge,  that  is,  in  every  kind  and  degree  of  religious  knowledge. 
This  interpretation  gives  a  good  sense,  and  is  the  one  very 
generally  adopted.  The  word  (Xoyos)  translated  utterance, 
may  however  be  taken  hi  the  sense  of  doctrine,  and  the  word 
(yvSxns)  translated  knowledge,  in  the  sense  of  insight.  The 
meaning  would  then  be,  that  the  church  in  Corinth  was  rich 
ly  endowed  with  divine  truth,  and  with  clear  apprehension  or 
understanding  of  the  doctrines  which  they  had  been  taught. 
They  were  second  to  no  other  church  either  as  to  doctrinal 
knowledge  or  spiritual  discernment.  Ao'yos,  according  to  this 
view,  is  the  truth  preached ;  yvwcns,  the  truth  apprehended. — 
MEYEK. 

6.  Even  as  the  testimony  of  Christ  was  confirmed 
in  you. 

Even  as,  i.  e.  because,  inasmuch  as.  They  were  thus  en 
riched,  because  the  testimony  of  Christ,  that  is,  the  gospel,  was 
confirmed  among  them.  The  gospel  is  called  the  '  testimony 
of  Christ,'  either  because  it  is  the  testimony  concerning  God 
and  divine  things,  which  Christ  bore  ;  or  because  it  is  the  testi 
mony  which  the  apostles  bore  concerning  Christ.  Either  ex 
planation  is  agreeable  to  the  analogy  of  the  Scripture.  Christ 
is  called  the  true  witness ;  and  is  said  to  have  borne  witness 
of  the  truth.  Compare  John  3,  11.  32.  33.  8,  13.  14.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  apostles  are  frequently  called  the  witnesses^of 
Christ,  and  are  said  to  have  borne  testimony  concerning  him. 
The  gospel,  therefore,  is,  in  one  view,  the  testimony  which 
Christ  bore ;  and,  in  another,  the  testimony  which  the  apos 
tles  bore  concerning  him.  The  former  is  the  higher,  and 
therefore,  the  better  sense.  It  is  good  to  contemplate  the 
gospel  as  that  system  of  truth  which  the  eternal  Logos,  or 
Revealer,  has  made  known. 

Was  confirmed  in  you.  This  may  mean  either,  was  firmly 
established  among  you;  or  was  firmly  established  in  your 
faith.  The  gospel  was  demonstrated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be 
true,  and  was  firmly  settled  in  their  conviction.  This  firm 
faith  was  then,  as  it  is  now,  the  necessary  condition  of  the  en 
joyment  of  the  blessings  by  which  the  gospel  is  attended. 
Therefore  the  apostle  adds, 

7.  So  that  ye  come  behind  in  no  gift;  waiting  for 
the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


8  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  7. 

Such  was  their  strength  of  faith  that  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit  were  bestowed  upon  them  as  abundantly  as  upon  any 
other  church.  This  connection  of  faith  with  the  divine  bless 
ing  is  often  presented  in  Scripture.  Our  Lord  said  to  the 
father  who  sought  his  aid  in  behalf  of  his  demoniac  child,  "  If 
thou  canst  believe,  all  things  are  possible  to  him  that  believ- 
eth,"  Mark  9,  23.  And  on  another  occasion,  "  According  to 
thy  faith  be  it  unto  thee,"  Matt.  9,  29.  In  his  own  country, 
it  is  said,  he  did  not  many  mighty  works  "  because  of  their 
unbelief,"  Matt.  13,  58.  The  Holy  Ghost,  therefore,  confers 
on  men  his  gifts  in  proportion  to  their  faith.  The  word 
(xa/Hoy/,a)  gift,  is  used  both  for  the  ordinary  and  extraordina 
ry  gifts  of  the  Spirit ;  most  frequently  for  the  latter.  Here  it 
includes  both  classes.  The  Corinthians  had  not  only  the  in 
ward  gifts  of  repentance,  faith  and  knowledge,  but  also  those 
of  miracles,  of  healing,  of  speaking  with  tongues,  of  prophecy, 
in  rich  abundance.  No  church  was  superior  to  them  in  these 
respects.  The  extraordinary  gifts,  however,  seem  to  be  princi 
pally  intended.  Paul's  commendation  has  reference  to  their 
wisdom,  knowledge  and  miraculous  gifts,  rather  than  to  their 
spiritual  graces.  Much  as  he  found  to  censure  in  their  state 
and  conduct,  he  freely  acknowledged  their  flourishing  con 
dition  in  many  points  of  view. 

Waiting  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "Wait 
ing  (aTrcKSe^o/xeVovg)  patiently  expecting,  comp.  1  Pet.  3,  20,  or 
expecting  with  desire,  i.  e.  longing  for.  Comp.  Rom.  8, 19.  20. 
23.  The  object  of  this  patient  and  earnest  expectation  of  be 
lievers  is  the  coming  (aTroKaXvij/iv)  i.  e.  the  revelation  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  second  advent  of  Christ,  so  clearly 
predicted  by  himself  and  by  his  apostles,  connected  as  it  is 
with  the  promise  of  the  resurrection  of  his  people  and  the 
consummation  of  his  kingdom,  was  the  object  of  longing  ex 
pectation  to  all  the  early  Christians.  So  great  is  the  glory 
connected  with  that  event  that  Paul,  in  Rom.  8,  18-23,  not 
only  represents  all  present  afflictions  as  trifling  in  comparison, 
but  describes  the  whole  creation  as  looking  forward  to  it  with 
earnest  expectation.  Comp.  Phil.  3,  20.  Tit.  2,  13.  So  gene 
ral  was  this  expectation  that  Christians  were  characterized  as 
those  "  who  love  his  appearing,"  2  Tim.  4,  8,  and  as  those 
"  who  wait  for  him,"  Heb.  9,  28.  Why  is  it  that  this  longing 
for  the  coming  of  Christ  is  awakened  in  the  hearts  of  his  peo 
ple  ?  The  apostle  answers  this  question  by  saying  that  the 
"first  fruits  of  the  Spirit"  enjoyed  by  believers  in  this  life 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  7.8.  9 

are  an  earnest,  that  is,  a  foretaste  and  pledge,  of  those  bless 
ings  which  they  are  to  receive  in  their  fulness  at  the  second 
advent.  The  Spirit,  therefore,  awakens  desire  for  that  event. 
See  Rom.  8,  23.  Eph.  1,  14.  The  same  truth  is  here  implied. 
The  Corinthians  had  received  largely  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit : 
the  consequence  was  they  waited  with  patience  and  desire  for 
the  revelation  of  Christ,  when  they  should  enter  on  that  in 
heritance  of  which  those  gifts  are  the  foretaste  and  pledge. 
If  the  second  coming  of  Christ  is  to  Christians  of  the  present 
day  less  an  object  of  desire  than  it  was  to  their  brethren  dur 
ing  the  apostolic  age,  it  must  be  because  they  think  the  Lord 
is  "  slack  concerning  his  promise,"  and  forget  that  with  him  a 
thousand  years  is  as  one  day. 

8.  Who  shall  also  confirm  you  unto  the  end,  (that 
ye  may  be)  blameless  in  the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

Who  most  naturally  refers  to  God  as  its  antecedent,  be 
cause  he  is  the  prominent  subject  in  the  context ;  and  because 
the  reference  to  Christ  would  make  the  apostle  say  '  Christ 
shall  confirm  unto  the  day  of  Christ ; '  and  because  in  the 
following  verse,  God  is  expressly  mentioned.  c  Because  God 
is  faithful,  he  will  confirm  you,'  is  the  clear  meaning  of  the 
passage.  Besides,  vocation  and  perseverance  are,  in  the  work 
of  redemption,  specially  referred  to  the  Father. 

/Shall  also  confirm  you.  God  had  not  only  enriched  them 
with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  but  he  would  also  confirm  them. 
The  one  was  an  assurance  of  the  other.  Those  to  whom  God 
gives  the  renewing  influence  of  the  Spirit,  he  thereby  pledges 
himself  to  save ;  for  "  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit "  are,  as  just 
remarked,  of  the  nature  of  a  pledge.  They  are  an  earnest,  as 
the  apostle  says,  of  the  future  inheritance,  Eph.  1, 14.  2  Cor. 
1,  21.  22.  Shall  confirm  (/Je/foioxra)  i.  e.  shall  make  steadfast, 
preserve  from  falling.  The  word  is  used  in  reference  to  per 
sons  and  things.  God  is  said  to  confirm  his  promises,  when 
he  fulfils  them,  or  so  acts  as  to  prevent  their  failing,  see  Rom. 
15,  8,  or  when  he  demonstrates  their  truth,  Mark  16,  20.  He 
is  said  to  confirm  his  people  wThen  he  renders  them  steadfast 
in  the  belief  and  obedience  of  the  truth,  2  Cor.  1,  21.  Unto 
the  end,  may  mean  the  end  of  life,  or  the  end  of  this  dispensa 
tion,  i.  e.  to  the  end  of  the  period  which  was  to  precede  the 
advent  of  Christ ;  or  it  may  be  understood  indefinitely  as  we 
1* 


10  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  8.9. 

use  the  expression  "final  perseverance."  Unblamable,  i.  e. 
not  arraigned  or  accused.  He  is  unblamable  against  whom 
no  accusation  can  be  brought.  In  this  sense  it  is  said  "  a 
bishop  must  be  blameless,"  Titus  1,  6.  7.  God  will  confirm 
his  people  so  that  when  the  day  of  judgment  comes,  which  is 
the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  i.  e.  the  day  of  his  second  advent, 
they  shall  stand  before  him  blameless,  not  chargeable  with 
apostasy  or  any  other  sin.  They  are  to  be  '  holy  and  without 
blame.'  Compare  1  Thess.  5,  23.  When  we  remember  on  the 
one  hand  how  great  is  our  guilt,  and  on  the  other,  how  great 
is  our  danger  from  without  and  from  within,  we  feel  that 
nothing  but  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and  the  power  of  God 
can  secure  our  being  preserved  and  presented  blameless  in 
the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

9.  God  (is)  faithful,  by  whom  ye  were  called  unto 
the  fellowship  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

God  is  faithful,  one  in  whom  we  may  confide ;  one  who 
will  fulfil  all  bis  promises.  The  apostle's  confidence  in  the 
steadfastness  and  final  perseverance  of  believers  was  founded 
neither  on  the  strength  of  their  purpose  to  persevere,  nor  on 
any  assumption  that  the  principle  of  religion  in  their  hearts 
was  indestructible,  but  simply  on  the  fidelity  of  God.  If  God 
has  promised  to  give  certain  persons  to  his  Son  as  his  inheri 
tance,  to  deliver  them  from  sin  and  condemnation  and  to  make 
them  partakers  of  eternal  life,  it  is  certain  he  will  not  allow 
them  to  perish.  This  is  plain  enough,  but  how  did  the  apos 
tle  know  that  those  to  whom  he  wrote  were  included  in  the 
number  of  those  given  to  Christ,  and  that  the  fidelity  of  God 
was  pledged  to  their  salvation  ?  It  was  because  they  were 
called.  Whom  he  calls,  them  he  also  justifies;  and  whom  he 
justifies  them  he  also  glorifies,  Rom.  8,  30.  The  call  intended 
is  the  effectual  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  the  soul  is  re 
newed  and  translated  from  the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  the 
kingdom  of  light.  The  only  evidence  of  election  is  therefore 
vocation,  and  the  only  evidence  of  vocation,  is  holiness  of 
heart  and  life,  for  we  are  called  into  the  fellowship  of  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Compare  again  Rom.  8,  29,  where 
believers  are  said  to  be  "  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  his  Son."  To  this  they  are  effectually  called. 
They  are  made  like  Christ.  Fellowship  includes  union  and 
communion.  The  original  word  (KOLVUVM)  signifies  participa- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  l,  9.  11 

tion,  as  in  10,16,  "participation  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  2 
Cor.  13,  13,  "participation  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  "We  are 
called  to  be  partakers  of  Christ;  partakers  of  his  life,  as 
members  of  his  body ;  and  therefore,  partakers  of  his  charac 
ter,  of  his  sufferings  here  and  of  his  glory  hereafter.  This  last 
idea  is  made  specially  prominent.  Believers  are  called  to  be 
partakers  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  Rom.  8,  17.  23.  2  Thess.  2, 
14.  It  is  because  believers  are  thus  partakers  of  Christ,  that 
the  apostle  was  assured  they  could  never  perish.  The  person 
with  whom  believers  are  thus  intimately  united,  is  the  tion  of 
God,  of  the  same  nature,  being  the  same  in  substance  and 
equal  in  power  and  glory.  He  is  also  Jesus,  a  man ;  conse 
quently  he  is  both  God  and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures,  and 
one  person.  This  incarnate  God,  the  Saviour,  is  the  Christ, 
of  whom  the  Old  Testament  says  and  promises  so  much.  He 
is  also  our  Lord,  we  belong  to  him ;  he  is  our  possessor,  our 
sovereign,  our  protector.  How  can  they  apostatize  and  per 
ish  who  stand  in  this  relation  to  the  eternal  Son  of  God  ? 

Of  the  Divisions  in  the  Church  of  CorintJi.    Vs.  10-16. 

As  one  of  the  principal  objects  of  this  epistle  was  to  cor 
rect  the  evils  which  had  arisen  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  the 
apostle  adverts,  first,  to  the  divisions  which  there  existed. 
He  exhorts  the  members  of  that  church  to  unity,  v.  10.  The 
reason  of  that  exhortation  was  the  information  which  he  had 
received  concerning  their  dissensions,  v.  11.  These  divisions 
arose  from  their  ranging  themselves  tinder  different  religious 
teachers  as  party  leaders,  v.  12.  The  sin  and  folly  of  such 
divisions  are  manifest,  in  the  first  place,  because  Christ  is  in 
capable  of  division.  As  there  is  one  head,  there  can  be  but 
one  body.  As  there  is  but  one  Christ,  there  can  be  but  one 
church.  And  in  the  second  place,  because  religious  teachers 
are  not  centres  of  unity  to  the  church.  They  had  not  re 
deemed  it,  nor  did  its  members  profess  allegiance  to  them  in 
baptism,  v.  13.  These  divisions,  therefore,  arose,  on  the  one 
hand,  from  a  forgetfulness  of  the  common  relation  which  all 
Christians  bear  to  Christ ;  and,  on  the  other,  from  a  misappre 
hension  of  the  relation  in  which  believers  stand  to  their  reli 
gious  teachers.  Paul  expresses  his  gratitude  that  he  had  not 
given  any  occasion  for  such  misapprehension.  He  had  bap 
tized  so  few  among  them,  that  no  man  could  suspect  him  of  a 
desire  to  make  himself  the  head  of  the  church  or  the  leader 
of  a  party,  \s.  14-16. 


12  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  10. 

10.  Now  1  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing, 
and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,  but  (that) 
ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and 
in  the  same  judgment. 

There  is  but  one  exhortation  in  this  verse,  which  is  ex- 
pressed  first  in  general  terms,  "  that  ye  all  say  the  same 
thing ; "  and  is  then  explained  in  the  negative  form,  "  that 
there  be  no  divisions  among  you ; "  and  then  positively,  "  that 
ye  be  perfectly  joined  together." 

By  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.  out  of  re 
gard  to  Christ,  Rom.  12,1.  15,30.  2  Thess.  4,  12.  Their 
reverence  and  love  of  Christ,  and  regard  for  his  authority  as 
their  Lord,  should  induce  them  to  yield  obedience  to  the 
apostle's  exhortation.  It  was  not  out  of  respect  to  him,  but 
out  of  regard  to  Christ  they  should  obey.  This  renders  obe 
dience  easy  and  elevating.  To  say  the  same  thing  (TO  avrb 
Xeyeiv)  is  a  phrase  of  frequent  occurrence  to  express  agreement. 
It  may  be  so  understood  here,  and  then  the  following  clauses 
are  explanatory.  Or,  it  may  be  understood  in  reference  to  v. 
12,  of  outward  profession.  'Do  not  say  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I 
of  Apollos,  but  all  say  the  same  thing.'  The  former  explana 
tion  appears  the  more  natural. 

And  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,  literally, 
schisms.  The  word  (O^UT/UE)  means,  I.  A  rent,  as  in  a  garment, 
Matt.  9,  16.  2.  Difference  of  opinion,  John  7,  43.  3.  Alienation 
of  feeling,  or  inward  separation.  4.  In  its  ecclesiastical  sense,  it 
is  an  unauthorized  separation  from  the  church.  The  schisms 
which  existed  in  Corinth  were  not  of  the  nature  of  hostile 
sects  refusing  communion  with  each  other,  but  such  as  may 
exist  in  the  bosom  of  the  same  church,  consisting  in  alienation 
of  feeling  and  party  strifes. 

But  (that]  ye  be  perfectly  joined  together.  The  original 
word  (KarapTi^o))  means  to  repair,  or  to  mend,  Matt.  4,  21,  to 
reduce  to  place,  as  a  dislocated  limb  ;  to  render  complete,  or 
perfect  (oprios) ;  then  figuratively,  to  restore  or  set  right  those 
in  error ;  to  prepare,  to  render  perfect.  Hence  in  this  place 
the  sense  may  be,  *  That  ye  be  perfect,'  as  the  Vulgate  ren 
ders  it ;  or,  4  that  ye  be  united,'  as  in  our  translation ;  or, 
*  that  ye  be  reduced  to  order.'  The  context  shows  that  the 
idea  of  union  is  what  the  apostle  intended.  They  were  not  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  10.11.12.  13 

be  divided,  but  united.  This  union  was  to  be  both  in  mind 
and  in  judgment  (vovs  and  yWyn?).  The  former  term  may 
refer  either  to  the  intellect  or  feelings.  The  latter  in  the  New 
Testament  always  means  judgment  or  opinion.  When  the 
words  are  united,  the  former  is  most  naturally  understood  of 
feeling,  a  sense  in  which  the  word  mind  is  often  used  by  us. 
The  unity  which  Paul  desired  was  a  union  in  faith  and  love. 
Considering  the  relation  in  which  Christians  stand  to  each  oth 
er  as  the  members  of  Christ,  dissensions  among  them  are  as  in 
consistent  with  their  character,  as  conflict  between  the  mem 
bers  of  the  human  body. 

11.  For  it  hath  been  declared  unto  me  of  you,  my 
brethren,  by  them  (which  are  of  the  house)  of  Chloe, 
that  there  are  contentions  among  you. 

This  verse  contains  the  reason  of  the  foregoing  exhortation. 
He  urges  them  to  union  because  he  had  heard  they  were  di 
vided.  By  those  of  Chloe,  whether  the  persons  referred  to 
were  the  children  or  domestics  of  Chloe  is  left  undetermined. 
Chloe  was  a  Christian  woman  well  known  to  the  Corinthians ; 
whether  a  member  of  the  church  in  Corinth  whose  people  had 
come  to  Ephesus  where  Paul  was ;  or  an  Ephesian  whose 
family  had  been  to  Corinth,  and  learned  the  state  of  things 
there,  is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  All  Paul  wished  was  to  as 
sure  the  Corinthians  that  he  had  sufficient  evidence  of  the  ex 
istence  of  contentions  among  them.  This  word  (c/nSes)  strifes, 
wranglings,  explains  the  nature  of  the  schisms  referred  to  in 
the  preceding  verse.  These  strifes,  as  appears  from  what  fol 
lows,  were  about  their  religious  teachers. 

12.  Now  this  I  say,  that  every  one  of  you  saith,  I 
am  of  Paul;  and  I  of  Apollos;  and  I  of  Cephas;  and 
I  of  Christ. 

This  explains  the  nature  of  these  contentions.  In  almost 
all  the  apostolic  churches  there  were  contentions  between  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  converts.  As  Paul  was  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  Peter  of  the  Jews,  Gal.  2,  8,  it  is  probable  that 
the  converts  from  among  the  Gentiles  claimed  Paul  as  their 
leader,  and  the  Jewish  converts  appealed  to  the  authority  of 
Peter.  It  is  plain  from  the  contents  of  this  and  of  the  follow 
ing  epistle,  that  these  contentions  were  fomented  by  false 


i4  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  12.13. 

teachers,  2  Cor.  11,  13 ;  that  these  teachers  were  Hebrews,  2 
Cor.  11,  22,  and  that  they  endeavoured  to  undermine  the  au 
thority  of  Paul  as  an  apostle.  The  two  principal  parties  in 
Corinth,  therefore,  were  Gentiles  calling  themselves  the  disci 
ples  of  Paul,  and  Jews  claiming  to  be  the  followers  of  Peter. 
The  Gentile  converts,  however,  were  not  united  among  them 
selves.  While  some  said,  we  are  of  Paul ;  others  said,  we  are 
of  Apollos.  As  Apollos  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  distinguished 
for  literary  culture  and  eloquence,  it  is  probable  that  the  more 
highly  educated  among  the  Corinthian  Christians  were  his 
peculiar  followers.  Apollos  is  a  shortened  form  of  Apollonius, 
as  Silas  is  of  Silvanus.  The  first  governor  of  Egypt  appointed 
by  Alexander  bore  that  name ;  and  probably  on  that  account 
it  became  in  that  country  so  exceedingly  common.  As  the  Ju- 
daizers  objected  to  Paul  that  he  was  not  an  apostle,  these  fol 
lowers  of  Apollos  undervalued  him  as  a  preacher.  He  was  nei 
ther  a  philosopher  nor  a  rhetorician  after  the  Grecian  school. 
We  shall  find  the  apostle  defending  himself  against  both  these 
classes  of  objections.  Who  those  were  who  said,  we  are  of 
Christ,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  determine.  It  is  plain  that  they 
were  as  much  to  blame  as  the  other  parties  mentioned.  They 
must  therefore  have  claimed  some  peculiar  relation  to  Christ 
which  they  denied  to  their  fellow  believers,  2  Cor.  10,  7. 
Whether  this  exclusive  claim  was  founded,  as  some  suppose, 
on  the  fact  that  they  had  themselves  seen  and  heard  Christ ; 
or  whether  they  asserted  their  superior  and  more  intimate 
relation  to  him  on  some  other  ground,  is  altogether  uncertain. 
It  would  appear  from  the  frequency  with  which  Paul  speaks 
of  certain  persons  in  Corinth  "  glorying  in  the  flesh,"  and  "  in 
appearance,"  that  this  party  claimed  some  peculiar  external 
relation  to  Christ,  and  that  their  views  of  him  were  "  carnal," 
or  worldly. 

13.  Is  Christ  divided?  was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ? 
or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  \ 

The  grounds  of  our  allegiance  to  Christ  are,  first,  that  he 
is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God ;  second,  that  he  hath 
redeemed  us ;  third,  that  we  are  consecrated  to  him  in  bap 
tism.  All  these  grounds  are  peculiar  to  Christ.  To  no  oth 
er  being  in  the  universe  do  believers  stand  in  the  relation 
which  they  all  sustain  to  their  common  Lord.  As,  therefore, 
there  is  but  one  Christ,  but  one  redeemer,  but  one  baptism, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  13.  14.  15.  16.  15 

Christians  cannot  be  divided  without  violating  the  bond  which 
binds  them  to  Christ  and  to  one  another. 

Is  Christ  divided?  Of  course  the  answer  must  be  in  the 
negative.  As  Christ  is  incapable  of  division,  as  there  can  be 
but  one  Christ,  the  church  cannot  be  divided.  It  is  contrary 
to  its  nature  to  be  split  into  hostile  parties,  just  as  it  is  con 
trary  to  the  nature  of  a  family  to  be  thus  divided.  As  the 
head  is  one,  so  are  the  members. 

Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  Did  Paul  redeem  you  ? 
Were  you  purchased  by  his  blood,  so  as  to  belong  to  him  ? 
If  not,  then  you  are  not  his,  and  it  is  wrong  to  say,  We  ^  are 
Paul's.  Believers  bear  no  such  relation  even  to  inspired 
teachers,  as  to  justify  their  being  called  by  their  names.  They 
are  called  Christians,  because  they  are  the  worshippers  of 
Christ,  because  they  belong  to  him,  and  because  they  are  con 
secrated  to  him. 

Or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul?  (ets  TO  ovo/xa), 
literally,  unto  the  name,  i.  e.  in  reference  to  Paul,  so  that  he 
should  be  the  object  of  your  faith  and  the  one  whose  name 
you  were  to  confess.  By  baptism  we  are  brought  into  the 
number  of  the  disciples  and  followers  of  him  into  whose  name, 
or  in  reference  to  whom,  we  are  baptized.  As,  therefore,  all 
Christians  are  baptized  unto  Christ,  and  not  unto  the  apostles, 
much  less  any  uninspired  teacher,  it  is  Christ  whom  they 
should  confess,  and  by  his  name  they  should  be  called. 

14.  15.  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you, 
but  Crispus  and  Gains ;  lest  any  should  say  that  I  had 
baptized  in  mine  own  name. 

Although  it  was  the  duty  of  the  apostles  to  baptize,  Matt. 
28, 19,  yet  "Paul  rejoiced  that  it  had  so  happened  that  he  had 
administered  that  ordinance  to  only  a  few  persons  in  Corinth, 
as  thus  all  pretext  that  he  was  making  disciples  to  himself, 
was  taken  away.  Paul  did  not  consider  this  a  matter  of 
chance,  but  of  providential  direction,  and,  therefore,  a  cause 
of  gratitude.  Crispus  was  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue  in 
Corinth,  whose  conversion  is  recorded  in  Acts  18,  8.  Gaius 
is  mentioned  in  Rom.  16,  23,  as  the  host  of  the  apostle. 

16.  And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stepha 
nas  ;  besides  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other. 


16  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  16. 

Stephanas  was  one  of  the  three  messengers  sent  to  inform 
the  apostle  of  the  state  of  the  church  in  Corinth,  and  to  de 
liver  the  letter  to  which  reference  is  made,  ch.  7, 1,  coinp.  16, 

15.  IV.     Paul  says  he  baptized  the  household  or  family  of  Ste 
phanas.     Under  the  old  dispensation,  whenever  any  one  pro 
fessed  Judaism  or  entered  into  covenant  with  God  as  one  of 
his  people,  all  his  children  and  dependents,  that  is,  all  to  whom 
he  stood  in  a  representative  relation,  were  included  in  the 
covenant  and  received  circumcision  as  its  sign.     In  like  man 
ner  under  the  gospel,  when  a  Jew  or  Gentile  joined  the 
Christian  church,  his  children  received  baptism  and  were  re 
cognized  as  members  of  the  Christian  church.     Compare  Acts 

16,  15  and  33. 

Besides  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other.  The 
nature  of  inspiration  is  to  be  learnt  from  the  declarations  of  the 
Scriptures  and  from  the  facts  therein  recorded.  From  these 
sources  we  learn  that  it  was  an  influence  which  rendered  its 
recipients  infallible,  but  it  did  not  render  them  omniscient. 
They  were  preserved  from  asserting  error,  but  they  were  not 
enabled  either  to  know  or  to  remember  all  things. 

Paul's  defence  of  his  manner  of  preaching.    Ys.  17-31. 

The  apostle  having  been  led  to  mention  incidentally  that 
he  had  baptized  very  few  persons  in  Corinth,  assigns  as  the 
reason  of  that  fact  that  his  great  official  duty  was  to  preach 
the  gospel.  This  naturally  led  him  to  speak  of  the  manner  of 
preaching.  It  was  one  of  the  objections  urged  against  him 
that  he  did  not  preach  "  with  the  wisdom  of  words,"  that  is, 
that  he  did  not  preach  the  doctrines  taught  by  human  reason, 
which  he  calls  the  wisdom  of  the  world.  Through  the  re 
mainder  of  this,  and  the  whole  of  the  following  chapter,  he 
assigns  his  reasons  for  thus  renouncing  the  wisdom  of  the 
world, — and  resumes  the  subject  of  the  divisions  existing  in 
the  church  of  Corinth  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  chapter. 
1.  His  first  reason  for  not  teaching  human  wisdom  is  that  God 
had  pronounced  all  such  wisdom  to  be  folly,  vs.  19.  20.  2. 
Experience  had  proved  the  insufficiency  of  human  wisdom  to 
lead  men  to  a  saving  knowledge  of  God,  v.  21.  3.  God  had 
ordained  the  gospel  to  be  the  great  means  of  salvation,  vs. 
21-25.  4.  The  experience  of  the  Corinthians  themselves 
showed  that  it  was  not  wisdom  nor  any  other  human  distinc 
tion  that  secured  the  salvation  of  men.  Human  wisdom  could 
neither  discover  the  method  of  salvation,  nor  secure  compli- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  16.17.  17 

ance  with  its  terms  when  revealed.  They  were  in  Christ  (i.  e. 
converted),  not  because  they  were  wiser,  better,  or  more  dis 
tinguished  than  others,  but  simply  because  God  had  chosen  or 
called  them,  vs.  26-30.  The  design  of  God  in  all  this  was  to 
humble  men  so  that  he  who  glories  should  glory  in  the  Lord, 
v.  31. 

17.  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
preach  the  gospel :  not  with  wisdom  of  words,  lest  the 
cross  of  Christ  should  be  made  of  none  effect. 

For  indicates  the  connection.  i  I  baptized  few,  for  I  was 
not  sent  to  baptize,  but  to  preach.'  The  commission  was, 
"Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature."  This  does  not  mean  that  baptism  was  not  included, 
but  it  does  mean  that  baptizing  was  very  inferior  to  preaching. 
It  is  subordinated  in  the  very  form  of  the  commission,  "  Go  ye 
therefore,  make  disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  &c. 
The  main  thing  was  to  make  disciples ;  recognizing  them  as 
such  by  baptism  was  subordinate,  though  commanded.  Bap- 
tism  was  a  work  which  the  apostles  seem  to  have  generally 
left  to  others,  Acts  10,  48.  During  the  apostolic  age,  and  in 
the  apostolic  form  of  religion,  truth  stood  immeasurably  above 
external  rites.  The  apostasy  of  the  church  consisted  in  mak 
ing  rites  more  important  than  truth.  The  apostle's  manner 
of  speaking  of  baptism  in  this  connection  as  subordinate  to 
preaching  is,  therefore,  a  wonder  to  those  who  are  disposed 
unduly  to  exalt  the  sacraments,  as  may  be  seen  in  Olshausen's 
remarks  on  vs.  13-16.  We  must  not  infer  from  this  that  bap 
tism  is  of  little  importance,  or  that  it  may  be  safely  neglected. 
Although  Paul  controverted  the  Jewish  doctrine  that  circum 
cision  secured  salvation  and  was  necessary  to  its  attainment, 
he  nevertheless  admitted  that  its  advantages  were  great  every 
way,  Rom.  3,  2.  And  in  the  Old  Testament  it  is  expressly 
said  that  the  uncircumcised  man-child  should  be  cut  off  from 
the  people,  i.  e.  deprived  of  the  benefits  of  the  theocracy. 
While  therefore  it  is  unscriptural  to  make  baptism  essential  to 
salvation  or  a  certain  means  of  regeneration,  it  is  nevertheless 
a  dangerous  act  of  disobedience  to  undervalue  or  neglect  it. 

His  preaching  Paul  describes  by  saying  it  was  "  not  with 
the  wisdom  of  words,"  (OVK  lv  o-ofaa  \6yov).  So  far  as  the  sig 
nification  of  these  words  is  concerned,  the  meaning  may  be, 
1.  Not  with  skilful  discourse,  that  is,  eloquence.  2.  Or,  not 
with  philosophical  discourse,  that  is,  not  in  an  abstract  or 


18  T.  CORINTHIANS  1,  17.18. 

speculative  manner,  so  that  the  truth  taught  should  be  pre 
sented  in  a  philosophical  form.  According  to  this  view  the 
doctrine  taught  would  still  be  the  gospel,  but  the  thing  re 
jected  and  condemned  would  be  merely  the  philosophical 
mode  of  exhibiting  it.  3.  The  meaning  may  be,  not  with  a 
discourse  characterized  by  wisdom ;  that  is,  the  contents  of 
which  was  human  wisdom,  instead  of  truths  revealed  by  God. 
The  context  is  in  favour  of  the  interpretation  last  mentioned. 
In  this  whole  connection  the  apostle  contrasts  two  kinds  of 
wisdom.  The  one  he  describes  as  the  wisdom  of  the  world, 
the  wisdom  of  men,  or  of  the  rulers  of  the  world.  By  this  he 
means  human  wisdom,  that  which  has  a  human  origin.  This 
he  pronounces  to  be  folly,  and  declares  it  to  be  entirely  ineffi 
cacious  in  the  salvation  of  men.  The  other  kind  of  wisdom, 
he  calls  the  wisdom  of  God,  i.  e.  derived  from  God ;  the  hid 
den  wisdom,  consisting  in  truths  which  human  reason  never 
could  discover.  The  former  he  repudiates.  He  says,  he  did 
not  come  to  preach  the  teachings  of  human  reason,  but  the 
testimony  of  God.  He  was  among  them  in  the  character,  not 
of  a  philosopher,  but  of  a  witness.  As  in  what  follows  the 
apostle  argues  to  prove  that  human  wisdom  is  folly  and  can 
not  save  men,  and  gives  that  as  the  reason  why  he  came 
preaching  the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  it  seems  plain  that  this  is 
the  meaning  of  the  passage  before  us.  '  Christ  sent  me  to 
preach,  not  with  wise  discourse,  that  is,  not  with  human  wis 
dom — not  as  a  philosopher,  but  as  a  witness.'  His  preaching 
therefore  was  the  simple  exhibition  of  the  truth  which  God 
had  revealed. 

Lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be  made  of  none  effect,  i.  e. 
rendered  powerless  and  inoperative.  If  Paul  in  preaching 
had  either  substituted  human  wisdom  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
cross,  or  had  so  presented  that  doctrine  as  to  turn  it  into  a 
philosophy,  his  preaching  would  have  been  powerless.  It 
would  lose  its  divine  element  and  become  nothing  more  than 
human  wisdom.  Whatever  obscures  the  cross  deprives  the 
gospel  of  its  power. 

18.  For  the  preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them  that 
perish,  foolishness ;  but  unto  us  which  are  saved,  it  is 
the  power  of  God. 

TJie  preaching  of  the  cross,  or,  the  doctrine  (6  Xoyos)  of  the 
cross,  that  is,  the  doctrine  of  salvation  through  the  crucifixion 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  18.  19.  20.  10 

of  the  Son  of  God  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men.  This 
doctrine,  though  to  one  class,  viz.,  those  who  are  lost,  i.  e. 
those  certainly  to  perish,  foolishness /  yet  to  another  class, 
viz.,  those  certainty  to  be  saved,  it  is  the  power  of  God.  That 
is,  it  is  that  through  which  the  power  of  God  is  manifested 
and  exercised,  and  therefore  it  is  divinely  efficacious.  All  the 
hearers  of  the  gospel  are  divided  into  two  classes.  To  the 
one,  the  doctrine  of  salvation  through  a  crucified  Redeemer 
appears  absurd.  They  are  called  "  the  lost,"  not  only  because 
they  are  certainly  to  perish,  but  also  because  they  are  in  a 
lost  state  while  out  of  Christ,  John  3,  18.  To  the  other,  this 
doctrine  is  divinely  efficacious  in  producing  peace  and  holiness. 
These  are  called  "  the  saved,"  not  only  because  they  are  cer 
tainly  to  be  saved,  but  also  because  they  are  now  in  a  state 
of  salvation.  Compare  2  Cor.  2,  15. 

This  verse  contains  the  reason  why  Christ  sent  the  apostle 
to  preach,  and  why  he  preached  the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  and 
not  human  wisdom.  That  reason  is,  because  the  doctrine  of 
the  cross  alone  is  effectual  to  salvation.  This  proposition  he 
proceeds  to  establish  by  a  series  of  arguments  designed  to 
prove  that  the  wisdom  of  the  world  cannot  save  men.  His 
first  argument  is  derived  from  the  express  declaration  of  the 
word  of  God  to  this  effect. 

19.  For  it  is  written,  I  will  destroy  the  wisdom  of 
the  wise,  and  will  bring  to  nothing  the  understanding 
of  the  prudent. 

This  is  not  to  be  considered  as  the  citation  of  any  one  par 
ticular  passage  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  much  as  an  appeal  to 
a  doctrine  therein  clearly  revealed.  In  a  multitude  of  pas 
sages,  and  in  various  forms,  God  had  taught  by  his  prophets 
the  insufficiency  of  human  reason  to  lead  men  to  the  know 
ledge  of  the  way  of  salvation.  In  Isaiah  29,  14.  nearly  the 
same  words  are  used,  but  with  a  more  limited  application. 
"  The  wisdom  of  the  wise,"  and  "  the  understanding  of  the 
prudent,"  are  parallel  expressions  for  the  same  thing. 

20.  Where  (is)  the  wise  ?  where  (is)  the  scribe  ? 
where  (is)  the  disputer  of  this  world  ?    hath  not  God 
made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  world  ? 

This  is  a  challenge  to  the  wise  of  every  class  and  of  every 


20  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  20.21. 

nation  to  disprove  what  he  had  said.  It  was  too  plain  to  be 
denied  that  God  had  made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  world, 
i.  e.  he  had  showed  it  to  be  foolish,  and  dealt  with  it  as  such. 
Among  the  Jews  there  were  three  classes  of  learned  men,  dis 
tinguished  by  terms  corresponding  to  those  which  the  apostle 
here  uses.  It  is  not  probable,  however,  that  Paul  refers  to 
that  classification,  because  he  is  not  speaking  specially  of  the 
Jews.  ^  The  first  term  (<ro</>os),  wise  man,  is  probably  to  be 
taken  in  a  general  sense  including  that  of  the  two  following 
words.  '  Where  is  the  wise,  whether  Jewish  scribe  or  Grecian 
sophist  ? J  The  word  scribe  is  the  common  designation  of  the 
learned  class  among  the  Jews.  It  was  originally  applied  to 
the  secretaries  whose  business  it  was  to  prepare  and  issue  de 
crees  in  the  name  of  the  king  (2  Sam.  8,  17.  20,  25.  2  Kings 
12,  10%  19,  2).  Afterwards,  and  especially  in  the  New  Testa 
ment,  it  was  used  as  the  designation  of  those  learned  in  the 
law,  who  were  charged  not  only  with  its  transcription,  but 
also  with  its  exposition,  and  at  times  with  its  administration. 
The  same  title  was  given  in  many  of  the  Asiatic  states  to  the 
magistrate  who  presided  over  the  senate,  took  charge  of  the 
laws,  and  who  read  them  when  necessary  to  the  people,  Acts 
19,  35. 

Where  is  the  disputer  ?  (cru&rrjTrjs)  inquirer,  questioner, 
sophist ;  the  appropriate  designation  of  the  Grecian  philoso 
pher.  Of  this  world,  or  age.  This  qualification  belongs  to 
all  the  preceding  terms.  4  Where  is  the  wise  of  this  world, 
whether  scribe  or  sophist  f » 

21.  For  after  that  in  the  wisdom  of  God  the  world 
by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  it  pleased  God  by  the  fool 
ishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe. 

This  and  the  following  verses  contain  the  apostle's  second 
argument  in  proof  of  the  insufficiency  of  human  wisdom.  The 
argument  is  this :  experience  having  shown  the  insufficiency 
of  human  wisdom,  God  set  it  aside,  and  declared  it  to  be 
worthless,  by  adopting  the  foolishness  of  preaching  as  the 
means  of  salvation.  This  argument  therefore  includes  two 
distinct  proofs.  First,  that  derived  from  experience  ;  and 
secondly,  that  derived  from  God's  having  appointed  the  gos 
pel,  as  distinguished  from  human  wisdom,  to  be  the  means  of 
saving  men. 

For  after  that.    It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  word  for  in 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  21.  21 

Paul's  writings  very  often  refers  to  something  implied  but  not 
expressed  in  the  context ;  most  commonly  it  refers  to  the 
answer  to  a  preceding  question.  It  is  so  here.  ;Hath  not 
God  made  foolish  the  wisdom  of  this  world  ?  He  has,  for,  &c.J 
After  that  (oreiS^)  properly,  since.  This  particle,  though  in 
the  Greek  writers  generally  used  of  time,  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  is  almost  uniformly  used  in  a  causal  sense.  This  is  its 
meaning  here.  '  For,  inasmuch  as,  or  because? 

In  the  wisdom  of  God.  This  means  either,  in  the  wise 
ordination  of  God,  or,  in  the  midst  of  the  manifestation  of  the 
wisdom  of  God.  If  the  former  interpretation  be  adopted,  the 
meaning  is,  that  it  was  a  manifestation  of  divine  wisdom  to 
leave  the  world  for  four  thousand  years  to  test  the  power  of 
human  wisdom,  that  thus  its  insufficiency  might  be  clearly 
demonstrated.  The  latter  interpretation  is  generally  adopted 
and  gives  a  better  sense.  'In  the  wisdom  of  God,  that  is, 
although  surrounded  by  the  manifestations  of  the  divine  wis 
dom  in  creation  and  providence,  man  failed  to  attain  any 
saving  knowledge  of  God.'  The  world  by  (its  -n)s)  wisdom 
knew  not  God.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  Rom.  1,  20, 
where  the  apostle  says,  God's  eternal  power  and  Godhead  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made. 
In  this  latter  passage  Paul  speaks  of  the  revelation  which  God 
had  made  of  himself;  in  the  former,  of  the  use  which  men 
had  made  of  that  revelation.  The  revelation  was  clear,  but 
men,  through  their  imbecility  and  perverseness,  did  not  com 
prehend  it.  In  the  midst  of  light  they  continued  blind.  The 
fault  was  in  them,  and  not  in  the  revelation.  They  did  not 
like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  Rom.  1,  28.  Besides, 
sometimes  the  knowledge  of  God,  in  Scripture,  means  that 
speculative  knowledge  which  human  reason  is  adequate  to  de 
rive  from  the  works  of  God,  and  which  renders  their  idolatry 
inexcusable;  at  other  times,  it  means  saving  knowledge. 
Hence  it  is  perfectly  consistent  to  say  in  the  former  sense,  that 
men  by  wisdom  may  attain  the  knowledge  of  God ;  and,  in 
the  latter  sense,  that  they  cannot  attain  that  knowledge. 
1  aul  is  here  speaking  of  the  knowledge  which  is  connected 
with  salvation.  Such  knowledge  the  world  by  wisdom  had 
failed  to  secure.  Therefore,  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness 
of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe.  "The  foolishness  of 
preaching »  means  the  preaching  of  foolishness,  that  is,  the 
cross.  The  doctrine  of  the  cross  was  foolishness  in  the  esti 
mation  of  men.  God  thus  put  to  shame  all  human  wisdom 


22  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  21.22.23. 

by  making  a  doctrine  which  the  wise  of  this  world  regarded 
as  absurd  the  means  of  salvation.  This  passage  in  its  connec 
tion  clearly  teaches  two  great  truths  ;  first,  that  the  cross,  or 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  crucified,  is  the  substance  of  the  gospel, 
that  in  which  its  vitality  and  power  consist ;  and  secondly, 
that  it  is  the  preaching,  or  public  proclamation  (Krjpvy^a)  of 
that  doctrine  which  is  the  great  means  of  salvation.  To  this 
all  other  means,  however  important,  are 'either  preparatory 
or  subordinate.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  preach* 
ing,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  includes  the  inculcation 
of  the  truth,  whether  to  an  individual  or  to  a  multitude — 
whether  by  the  road  side,  or  in  the  school,  or  lecture-room,  or 
the  pulpit.  Philip,  as  he  rode  in  the  chariot  with  the  eunuch, 
"  preached  to  him  Jesus,"  Acts  8,  35. 

22.  23.  For  the  Jews  require  a  sign,  and  the  Greeks 
seek  after  wisdom  ;  but  we  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto 
the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and  unto  the  Greeks  fool 
ishness. 

This  passage  is  parallel  to  the  preceding.  l  Since  the 
world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  it  pleased  God  by  the  fool 
ishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe — and  since  the 
Jews  ask  a  sign  and  the  Greeks  seek  wisdom,  we  preach,  &c.' 
That  is,  since  human  reason  in  all  its  developments,  Jewish 
or  Grecian,  had  failed,  we  preach  Christ. 

The  Jews  require,  or,  ask  (alrova-i)  a  sign*  This  was 
characteristic  of  the  Jews.  They  required  external  superna 
tural  evidence  as  the  ground  of  their  faith.  Their  constant 
demand  was,  "  What  sign  showest  thou  ?  "  Matt.  12,  39.  Mark 
8,  11.  John  6,  30.  To  this  disposition  our  Saviour  referred 
when  he  said,  "  A  wicked  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh 
after  a  sign,  and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it,  but  the 
sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas,"  Matt.  16,  4.  The  Greeks,  on  the 
other  hand,  seek  after  wisdom.  They  required  rational  evi 
dence.  They  would  receive  nothing  as  true  which  they  could 
not  understand,  and  see  the  rational  grounds  of.  These  are 
types  of  permanent  classes  of  men. 

But  we  preach  Christ  crucified.     This  doctrine  met  tho 

*  Instead  of  <nj,ue?oj/,  a  sign,  the  MSS.,  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  besides  many 
others  of  later  date,  read  cnj/ieia,  siyns,  which  almost  all  the  modern  editors 
adopt. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  23.24.  23 

demands  of  neither  class.  It  satisfied  neither  the  expectations 
of  the  Jews,  nor  the  requirements  of  the  Greeks.  On  the 
contrary,  it  was  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block.  They  had 
anticipated  in  the  Messiah  a  glorious  temporal  prince,  who 
should  deliver  and  exalt  their  nation.  To  present  to  them 
one  crucified  as  a  malefactor  as  their  Messiah,  was  the  great 
est  possible  insult.  He  was  to  them,  therefore,  a  stone  of 
stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence,  Rom.  9,  33.  1  Pet.  2,  8.  To 
the  Greeks  this  doctrine  was  foolishness.  Nothing  in  the  ap 
prehension  of  rationalists  can  be  more  absurd  than  that  the 
blood  of  the  cross  can  remove  sin,  promote  virtue,  and  secure' 
salvation ;  or  that  the  preaching  of  that  doctrine  is  to  convert 
the  world. 

24.  But  unto  them  which  are  called,  both  Jews  and 
Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of 
God. 

The  called  (K^TOL)  always  mean  Vhe  effectually  called,  as 
distinguished  from  those  who  are  merely  externally  invited. 
There  is  a  twofold  call  of  the  gospel ;  the  ono  external  by  the 
word  ;  the  other  internal  by  the  Spirit.  The  subjects  of  the 
latter  are  designated  "the  called,"  Rom.  1,  7.  8,  28.  Jude  1. 
Rev.  17, 14.  compare  Isaiah  48, 12.  The  Jews  desired  an  ex 
hibition  of  power ;  the  Greeks  sought  wisdom :  both  are  found 
in  Christ,  and  in  the  highest  degree.  He  is  the  power  of  God 
and  the  wisdom  of  God.  In  his  person  and  work  there  is  the 
highest  possible  manifestation  both  of  the  divine  power  and 
of  the  divine  wisdom.  And  those  who  are  called  not  only 
see,  but  experience  this.  The  doctrine  of  Christ  crucified 
produces  effects  on  them  which  nothing  short  of  divine  power 
can  accomplish.  And  it  reveals  and  imparts  to  them  the  true 
wisdom.  It  makes  them  divinely  wise ;  it  makes  them  holy  ; 
it  makes  them  righteous;  and  it  makes  them  blessed.  It 
does  infinitely  more  than  human  wisdom  could  ever  conceive, 
much  less  accomplish.  It  has  already  changed  the  state  of 
the  intelligent  universe,  and  is  to  be  the  central  point  of  influ 
ence  throughout  eternity.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  the 
wise  of  this  world  wish  to  see  ignored  or  obscured  in  behalf 
of  their  speculations.  Just  as  the  heathen  exchange  the  true 
God  for  birds  and  beasts  and  creeping  things,  and  think  tbem  • 
selves  profound. 


24  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  25.26. 

25.  Because  the  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser  than 
men,  and  the  weakness  of  God  is  stronger  than  men. 

This  is  a  confirmation  of  what  precedes.  The  gospel  is  thus 
efficacious,  because  the  lowest  manifestation  of  divine  wisdom 
exceeds  the  highest  results  of  the  wisdom  of  men ;  and  the 
lowest  exercise  of  God's  power  is  more  effectual  than  all 
human  strength.  Or,  instead  of  taking  the  verse  in  this  gen 
eral  sense,  the  foolishness  o/  God,  may  mean  the  gospel.  The 
meaning  then  is,  *  The  doctrine  of  the  cross,  though  regarded 
as  absurd  and  powerless,  has  more  of  power  and  wisdom  than 
any  thing  which  ever  proceeded  from  man.' 

26.  For  ye   see  your  calling,  brethren,  how  that 
not  many  wise  men  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty, 
not  many  noble  (are  called). 

The  connection  is  not  with  the  preceding  verse  but  with 
the  whole  preceding  context.  The  apostle  introduces  a  new 
argument  in  proof  of  the  uselessness  of  human  wisdom.  The 
argument  is  derived  from  their  religious  experience.  '  You 
see,  brethren,  it  is  not  the  wise  who  are  called.' 

Your  calling  (/cA^o-is)  does  not  mean  mode  of  life,  profes 
sion,  or  station,  as  the  word  vocation  often  does  with  us.  The 
Greek  word  is  never  used  in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament, 
unless  1  Cor.  Y,  20  be  an  exception.  It  always  refers  to  the 
call  of  God  by  his  word  and  Spirit.  It  is  to  be  so  understood 
here.  'You  see,  brethren,  your  conversion,  that  not  many 
wise  are  converted.'  In  this  sense  we  speak  of  "  effectual 
calling." 

Wise  after  the  flesh,  i.  e.  wise  with  human  wisdom.  Flesh 
in  Scripture  often  means  human  nature.  There  are  two  kinds 
of  wisdom,  the  one  human,  the  other  divine.  There  are, 
therefore,  two  classes  of  wise  men ;  those  possessing  the  wis 
dom  which  is  from  men,  and  those  who  have  the  wisdom 
which  comes  from  God.  Few  of  the  former  class  become 
Christians ;  therefore  it  is  not  by  wisdom  that  men  find  out 
God,  which  is  what  the  apostle  designs  to  prove. 

Not  many  mighty,  i.  e.  the  great  (ol  Swaroi,  those  having 
Swa/xts,  in  the  sense  of  power  and  authority).  The  opposite 
class  is  designated  as  the  weak  or  uninfluential,  see  Acts  25, 
5.  Not  many  noble,  i.  e.  well-born.  The  converts  to  Christi 
anity  were  not  in  general  from  the  higher  ranks  in  society. 


I.  CORINTHIAN'S   1,  26.27.28.  25 

The  things  which  elevate  man  in  the  world,  knowledge,  influ 
ence,  rank,  are  not  the  things  which  lead  to  God  and  salva 
tion.  As  there  is  no  verb  in  the  original  to  agree  with  these 
nominatives,  "the  wise,"  "the  mighty,"  "the  noble,"  we  may 
either  supply  the  simple  substantive  verb  are :  c  You  see  your 
calling,  not  many  of  you  are  wise,  or  mighty,  or  noble ; '  or, 
we  may  supply,  as  in  our  version,  the  word  called,  4  not  many 
wise  are  called ; '  or,  the  word  chosen,  '  not  many  wise  are 
chosen,  for  God  hath  chosen,  &c.'  The  sense  remains  the  same. 
Human  distinctions  are  insignificant  and  inefficacious  in  the 
sight  of  God,  who  is  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his  grace. 

27.  But  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  the 
world  to  confound  the  wise,  and  God  hath  chosen  the 
weak  things  of  the  world  to  confound  the  things  which 
are  mighty. 

In  this  and  the  following  verses  the  apostle  asserts  affirma 
tively  what  he  had  just  stated  negatively,  'God  does  not 
choose  the  wise,  but  he  chooses  the  foolish.' 

The  foolish  things  of  the  world,  (ra  /xwpa  TOT)  Ko'oyxov)  the 
foolish  portion  of  mankind.  In  this  and  in  the  following 
clauses  the  neuter  is  used  although  persons  are  intended,  be 
cause  the  reference  is  indefinite.  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish, 
the  weak,  the  insignificant,  &G.  Hath  chosen.  It  is  implied  in 
this  form  of  expression,  which  is  repeated  for  the  sake  of  em 
phasis,  that  as,  on  the  one  hand,  the  wise  and  the  great  were 
not  chosen  on  account  of  their  wisdom  or  greatness,  so,  on  the 
other,  the  foolish  and  the  weak  were  not  chosen  on  account  of 
their  want  of  wisdom  or  greatness.  God  chose  whom  he 
pleased.  He  chose  the  ignorant  that  he  might  confound  the 
wise ;  and  the  weak,  that  he  might  confound  the  mighty. 
That  is,  that  he  might  put  them  to  shame,  by  convincing  them 
of  the  little  value  of  the  things  on  which  they  prided  them 
selves,  and  by  exalting  over  them  those  whom  they  despised. 

28.  And  base  things  of  the  world,  and  things  which 
are  despised,  hath  God  chosen,  (yea)  and  things  which 
are  not,  to  bring  to  nought  things  that  are ; 

The  base  things,  i.  e.  the  base,  the  ignoble  (TO.  aycvfj),  those 
without  family,  as  opposed  to  the  noble.     Things  which  are 
despised,  i.  e.  men  in  low  condition,  whom  the  rich  and  noble 
2 


26  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  28.29.30. 

look  upon  with  contempt.  Things  which  are  not,  (TO, 
those  who  are  entirely  overlooked  as  though  they  had  no  ex 
istence.  There  is  a  climax  here.  God  has  chosen  not  only 
plebeians,  but  of  the  plebeians  those  who  were  objects  of  con 
tempt,  and  even  those  below  contempt,  too  insignificant  to  be 
noticed  at  all.  These,  and  such  as  these,  does  God  choose  to 
make  kings  and  priests  unto  himself.  To  briny  to  nought, 
(Karapy^cn?),  literally,  that  he  might  bring  to  noiight.  This  is 
a  stronger  term  than  that  used  in  the  preceding  verse,  and 
here  specially  appropriate.  God  brings  to  nothing  the  things 
that  are  (ra  wra),  i.  e.  those  who  make  their  existence  known 
and  felt,  as  opposed  to  those  who  are  nothing.  It  is  apparent 
from  the  dispensations  of  grace,  that  knowledge,  rank,  and 
power  do  not  attract  the  favour  of  God,  or  secure  for  their 
possessors  any  pre-eminence  or  preference  before  him.  This 
should  render  the  exalted  humble,  and  the  humble  content. 

29.  That  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his  presence. 

The  design  of  God  in  thus  dealing  with  men,  calling  the 
ignorant  rather  than  the  wise,  the  lowly  instead  of  the  great, 
is  that  no  man  should  boast  before  him.  No  one  can  stand  in 
his  sight  and  attribute  his  conversion  or  salvation  to  his  own 
wisdom,  or  birth,  or  station,  or  to  any  thing  else  by  which  he 
is  favourably  distinguished  from  his  fellow-men. 

30.  But  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God 
is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanc- 
tification  and  redemption. 

To  be  in  Christ  Jesus  is  to  be  united  to  him,  1.  Repre 
sentatively,  as  we  were  in  Adam,  Rom.  5,  12-21.  1  Cor.  15, 
22.  2.  Vitally,  as  a  branch  is  in  the  vine,  or  a  member  in  the 
body,  John  15, 1-7.  3.  Consciously  and  voluntarily  by  faith, 
Rom.  8, 1,  et  passim.  Of  this  union  with  Christ,  the  apostle 
teaches  us  here,  first,  its  origin,  and  secondly,  its  effects.  As 
to  its  origin,  it  is  of  God.  Of  him  ye  are  in  Christ  Jesus. 
It  is  (e£  avrov)  of  him  as  the  efficient  cause.  It  is  to  be  referred 
to  him  alone  that  ye  are  in  Christ.  Your  conversion  or  sav- 
ino-  union  with  Christ  is  not  due  to  yourselves ;  it  is  not  be 
cause  you  are  wiser,  or  better,  or  more  diligent  than  others 
that  you  are  thus  distinguished.  This  which  is  the  turning 
point  in  theology,  and  therefore  in  religion,  is  here  most  ex- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  30.  27 

plicitly  asserted.  And  it  is  not  only  asserted,  but  it  is  de 
clared  to  be  the  purpose  of  God  to  make  it  apparent,  and  to 
force  all  men  to  acknowledge  it.  He  so  dispenses  his  grace 
as  to  make  men  see  with  regard  to  others,  and  to  acknow 
ledge  with  regard  to  themselves,  that  the  fact  that  they  are 
in  Christ,  or  true  Christians,  is  due  to  him  and  not  to  them 
selves.  The  effects  of  this  union,  as  here  stated,  are,  that 
Christ  is  of  Gad  (GOTO  ®eov),  as  the  author,  made  unto  us, 
1.  Wisdom.  Christ  is  the  true  wisdom.  He  is  the  Logos, 
the  Revealer,  in  whom  dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead, 
and  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.  No  man 
knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son 
shall  reveal  him,  John  1,  18.  Union  with  him,  therefore, 
makes  the  believer  truly  wise.  It  secures  the  knowledge  of 
God,  whose  glory  is  revealed  in  the  face-  of  Christ,  and  whom 
to  know  is  eternal  life.  All  true  religious  knowledge  is  de 
rived  from  Christ,  and  it  is  only  those  who  submit  to  his 
teaching  who  are  wise  unto  salvation. 

2.  The  second  effect  of  union  with  Christ,  is  righteousness 
and  sanctification  (StKaioo-vr^  re  KCH  aytcur/xos) ;   these  are  inti 
mately  united   (re  KCU)  as  different  aspects  of  the  same  thing. 
Righteousness  is  that  which  satisfies  the  demands  of  the  law 
as  a  rule  of  justification;  sanctification,  or  holiness,  is  that 
which  satisfies  the  law  as  a  rule  of  duty.     Christ  is  both  to  us. 
He  is  our  righteousness,  because  by  his  obedience  and  death 
he  has  fully  satisfied  the  demands  of  justice,  so  that  we  are 
"the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  2  Cor.  5,  21.     When  we 
stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  God,  Christ  is  our  righteous 
ness.     He  answers  for  us ;  he  presents  his  own  infinite  merit 
as  the  all-sufficient  reason  for  our  justification.   Rom.  3,  21.  22. 
5, 19.    Phil.  3,  9.     He  is  also  our  sanctification.     His  Spirit 
dwells  in  all  his  people  as  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  so  that  they 
are  transformed  into  his  likeness  from  glory  to  glory.     Wher 
ever  the  Spirit  dwells  there  are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.     Acts 
26,  18.  Rom.  8,  9.  10.  Gal.  5,  22.  Eph.  2,  5.  10. 

3.  The  third  effect  is  redemption,  i.  e.  deliverance  from 
evil.     This  term  sometimes  includes  all  the  benefits  received 
from  Christ.     When  he  is  called  our  Redeemer  he  is  present 
ed  as  our  deliverer  from  guilt,  from  hell,  from  sin,  from  the 
power  of  Satan,  from  the  grave.     But  when  redemption  is 
distinguished  from  justification  and  sanctification,  it  refers  to 
the  final  deliverance  from  evil.     The  "  day  of  redemption  "  is 
the  day  when  the  work  of  Christ  shall  be  consummated  in  the 


28  I.  CORINTHIANS  1,  30.31. 

perfect  salvation  of  his  people  as  to  soul  and  body.     Rom.  8, 
23.     Eph.  1,  14.  4,  30.     Heb.  9,  12. 

Those,  then,  who  are  in  Christ  have  divine  wisdom  or  tne  sav 
ing  knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine  things ;  they  have  a  right 
eousness  which  secures  their  justification.  There  is  no  condem 
nation  to  those  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  Rom.  8,  1.  They  are 
renewed  after  the  image  of  God,  and  shall  finally  be  presented 
without  spot  or  blemish  before  the  presence  of  his  glory.  And 
they  are  partakers  of  eternal  redemption  or  full  deliverance 
from  all  the  evils  of  sin,  and  are  introduced  into  the  glorious 
liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  These  infinite  blessings  can  be 
obtained  only  through  Christ.  Union  with  him  is  the  neces 
sary,  and  the  only  necessary,  condition  of  our  participation  of 
these  blessings.  And  our  union  with  Christ  is  of  God.  It  is 
not  of  ourselves,  by  our  own  wisdom,  goodness,  or  strength, 
but  solely  by  his  grace ;  and  therefore  must  be  sought  as  an 
unmerited  favour. 

31.  That,  according  as  it  is  written,  He  that  glori- 
eth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord. 

That,  i.  e.  in  order  that.  The  design  of  God  in  making 
wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption  depend 
ent  on  union  with  Christ,  and  union  with  Christ  dependent, 
not  on  our  merit,  but  on  his  own  good  pleasure,  is  that  we 
should  glory  only  in  him ;  that  is,  that  our  confidence  should 
be  in  him  and  not  in  ourselves,  and  that  all  the  glory  of  our 
salvation  should  be  ascribed  to  him  and  not  to  us.  Such  be 
ing  the  design  of  God  in  the  work  of  redemption,  it  is  obvious 
we  must  conform  to  it  in  order  to  be  saved.  We  must  seek 
wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  redemption  only  in 
Christ ;  and  we  must  seek  union  with  Christ  as  an  undeserved 
favour. 

The  passage  quoted  is  probably  Jeremiah  9,  23.  24,  the 
sense  of  which  is  condensed.  In  quoting  the  Old  Testament 
the  apostle  frequently  cites  the  words  as  they  stand,  without 
so  modifying  them  as  to  make  them  grammatically  cohere 
with  the  context.  As  in  the  Septuagint,  which  he  quotes,  the 
imperative  mood  is  used,  the  apostle  here  retains  it,  and  in 
stead  of  saying,  '  In  order  that  he  who  glories  should  glory  in 
the  Lord,'  he  says  '  That,  He  that  glories  let  him  glory  in  the 
Lord.'  Comp.  2,  9.  Rom.  15,  3. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  1.  29 


CHAPTER  II 

Continues  his  defence  of  his  mode  of  preaching.  In  vs.  1-5  he  shows  that  he 
acted  on  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  In  vs.  6-9 
he  shows  that  the  gospel  is  the  true  wisdom.  The  source  of  this  know 
ledge,  as  externally  revealed  and  as  spiritually  apprehended,  is  the  Holt 
Spirit,  vs.  10-16. 

Continuation  of  his  defence  of  his  mode  of  preaching. 
Vs.  1-16. 

As  GOD  had  determined  to  save  men  not  by  human  wisdom 
but  by  the  gospel,  Paul,  when  he  appeared  in  Corinth,  came 
neither  as  an  orator  nor  as  a  philosopher,  but  simply  as  a  wit 
ness,  vs.  1,  2.  He  had  no  confidence  in  himself,  but  relied  for 
success  exclusively  on  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  vs.  3, 
4.  The  true  foundation  of  faith  is  not  reason,  but  the  testi 
mony  of  God,  v.  5. 

Though  what  he  preached  was  not  the  wisdom  of  men,  it 
was  the  wisdom  of  God,  undiscoverable  by  human  reason,  vs. 
6-9.  The  revealer  of  this  divine  wisdom  is  the  Holy  Ghost,' 
he  alone  being  competent  to  make  this  revelation,  because  he 
only  knows  the  secret  purposes  of  God,  vs.  10-12.  In  com 
municating  the  knowledge  thus  derived  from  the  Spirit,  the 
apostle  used  words  taught  by  the  Spirit,  v.  13.  Though  the 
knowledge  communicated  was  divine,  and  although  communi 
cated  in  appropriate  language,  it  was  not  received  by  the 
natural  man,  because  the  things  of  the  Spirit  can  be  discerned 
only  by  the  spiritual,  vs.  14-16. 

1 .  And  I,  brethren,  when  I  came  to  you,  came  not 
with  excellency  of  speech  or  of  wisdom,  declaring  unto 
you  the  testimony  of  God. 

And  Z,  i.  e.  accordingly  I.  c  In  accordance  with  the  clear 
ly  revealed  purpose  of  God  to  reject  the  wisdom  of  the  world 
and  to  make  the  cross  the  means  of  salvation.' 

Excellency  of  speech  or  of  wisdom.  As  speech  and  wis 
dom  (Ao'yos  and  <ro<j>ia)  are  here  distinguished,  the  former 
probably  refers  to  the  manner  or  form,  and  the  latter  to  the 
matter  of  his  preaching.  It  was  neither  as  a  rhetorician  nor 
as  a  philosopher  that  he  appeared  among  them.  This  clause 


30  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  1.2.3. 

may  be  connected  either  with  the  word  came,  c  I  came  not 
with  excellency  of  speech ; '  or  with  the  word  declaring,  4 1 
came  not  declaring  with  excellency  of  speech,  &c.'  The 
former  mode  is  generally  preferred,  not  only  because  of  the 
position  of  the  words  in  the  sentence,  but  also  because  of  the 
sense.  Paul  does  not  mean  to  say  merely  that  he  did  not  de 
clare  the  testimony  of  God  in  a  rhetorical  or  philosophical 
manner ;  but  that  what  he  declared  was  not  the  wisdom  of 
men,  but  the  revelation  of  God. 

The  testimony  of  God  may  mean  either  the  testimony 
which  Paul  bore  concerning  God,  or  God's  own  testimony, 
i.  e.  what  God  had  revealed  and  testified  to  be  true.  "  The 
testimony  of  God"  is,  in  this  sense,  the  gospel,  as  in  2  Tim.  1, 
8.  The  latter  interpretation  best  suits  the  connection,  as 
throughout  these  chapters  Paul  contrasts  what  reason  teaches 
with  what  God  teaches.  He  did  not  appear  as  a  teacher  of 
human  wisdom,  but  as  announcing  what  God  had  revealed. 

2.  For  I  determined    not  to   know  any  thing  * 
among  you,  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified. 

For  is  confirmatory.  'I  came  not  with  excellency  of 
speech  or  of  wisdom,  for  I  determined,  &c.'  The  negative 
particle  in  this  sentence  may  be  connected  either  with  the 
word  to  Jcnow,  CI  determined  not  to  know;'  or  with  the 
word  determined,  4 1  did  not  determine,  i.  e.  I  had  no  inten 
tion  or  purpose.'  The  position  of  the  words  (ov  yap  tKpiva)  is 
in  favour  of  the  latter  interpretation.  The  meaning  in  either 
case  is  the  same. 

Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified.  Paul's  only  design  in 
going  to  Corinth  was  to  preach  Christ ;  and  Christ  not  as  a 
teacher,  or  as  an  example,  or  as  a  perfect  man,  or  as  a  new 
starting  point  in  the  development  of  the  race — all  this  would 
be  mere  philosophy ;  but  Christ  as  crucified,  i.  e.  as  dying  for 
our  sins.  Christ  as  a  propitiation  was  the  burden  of  Paul's 
preaching.  It  has  been  well  remarked  that  Jesus  Christ  re 
fers  to  the  person  of  Christ,  and  him  crucified,  to  his  work  ; 
which  constitute  the  sum  of  the  gospel. 

3.  And  I  was  with  you  in  weakness,  and  in  fear, 
and  in  much  trembling. 

*  The  common  text  here  is  rov  e/'SeVcu  rl.  The  TOV  is  omitted  in  the  MSS., 
A,  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  The  reading  adopted  in  the  recent  editions  is  rl 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  3.4.  31 


I  came  to  you,  lyevo^v  Trpo?  tyxas,  I  came  to  you  and  was 
with  you,  see  John  1,  2.  The  weakness  of  which  he  here  speaks 
was  not  bodily  weakness  ;  for  although  he  elsewhere  speaks 
of  himself  as  weak  in  body,  2  Cor.  10,  10,  and  as  suffering  un 
der  bodily  infirmity,  Gal.  4,  14,  yet  here  the  whole  context 
shows  he  refers  to  his  state  of  mind.  It  was  not  in  the  con 
sciousness  of  strength,  self-confident  and  self-relying,  that  he 
appeared  among  them,  but  as  oppressed  with  a  sense  ^of  his 
weakness  and  insumciency.  He  had  a  work  to  do  which  he 
felt  to  be  entirely  above  his  powers. 

In  fear  and  trembling,  i.  e.  in  anxiety,  or  solicitude  of 
mind  arising  out  of  a  sense  of  his  insufficiency,  and  of  the 
infinite  importance  of  his  work,  2  Cor.  7,  15.  Phil.  2,  12. 
Eph.  6,  5. 

4.  And  my  speech  and  my  preaching  (was)  not  with 
enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration 
of  the  Spirit  and  of  power. 

My  speech  and^  preaching  (Xo'yos  and  Krjpvypa).  If  these 
terms  are  to  be  distinguished,  the  former  may  refer  to  his  pri 
vate,  and  the  latter  to  his  public  instructions  ;  or,  the  former  is 
general,  including  all  modes  of  address,  and  the  latter  specific, 
limited  to  public  discourse.  '  My  instructions  in  general,  and 
my  public  preaching  in  particular.'  Both  terms,  however, 
may  designate  the  same  thing  under  different  aspects. 

His  mode  of  preaching  is  described,  first,  negatively,  and 
then  positively.  It  was  not  with  the  enticing  words  of  man's 
wisdom,  i.  e.  the  persuasive  words  which  human  wisdom 
would  suggest.  In  his  endeavours  to  bring  men  to  the  obedi 
ence  of  the  faith,  he  did  not  rely  upon  his  own  skill  in  argu 
ment  or  persuasion.  This  is  the  negative  statement.  ^Posi- 
tively,  his  preaching  was  in  (or  with,  w  ;  the  preposition  is  the 
same  in  both  clauses,  though  rendered  by  our  translators  in 
the  former,  with,  and  in  the  latter,  in)  the  demonstration  of 
the  Spirit  and  of  power.  This  may  mean,  c  The  demonstration 
of  the  powerful  Spirit;'  or,  'The  demonstration  of  the  ^  Spirit 
and  of  (miraculous)  power  ;  '  referring  to  the  twofold  evidence 
or  proof  of  the  gospel,  viz.,  the  internal  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  external  evidence  of  miracles.  The  word  (8wa/us), 
rendered  power,  often  means  miraculous  power,  but  as  such 
cannot  be  its  meaning  in  the  following  verse,  it  is  not  probable 
it  was  intended  to  have  that  sense  here.  The  phrase  probably 


32  I.   CORINTHIANS  2,  4.5. 

means  c  The  demonstration  of  which  the  Spirit  is  the  author, 
and  which  is  characterized  by  power ; '  so  that  the  sense  is; 
the  powerful  demonstration  of  the  Spirit. 

Demonstration  (ct7rdSa£is)  setting  forth,  exhibition  of  proof. 
Paul  relied,  therefore,  for  success,  not  on  his  skill  in  argument 
or  persuasion,  nor  upon  any  of  the  resources  of  human  wisdom, 
but  on  the  testimony  which  the  Spirit  bore  to  the  truth.  The 
Holy  Ghost  demonstrated  the  gospel  to  be  true. 
i 

5.  That  your  faith  should  not  stand  in  the  wisdom 
of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God. 

That,  i.  e.  in  order  that.  The  design  of  the  apostle  in  act 
ing  as  stated  in  the  preceding  verse,  was  that  the  faith  of  his 
hearers  might  not  rest  upon  human  reason,  but  on  the  testi 
mony  of  God.  It  might  have  been  easy  for  him  to  argue  the 
Corinthians  into  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  by 
appealing  to  its  superiority  to  heathenism  and  to  the  evidence 
of  its  divine  origin  afforded  by  prophecy  and  miracles.  He 
might  have  exhibited  the  folly  of  idolatry,  and  the  absurdity 
of  pagan  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  convinced  them  of  the  his 
torical  truth  of  Christianity.  The  conviction  thus  produced 
would  be  rational  and  important ;  but  it  would  not  be  saving 
faith.  Faith  founded  on  such  evidence  is  merely  speculative. 
The  true  foundation  of  faith,  or  rather,  the  foundation  of  true 
faith,  is  the  power  of  God.  This  is  explained  by  what  he  had 
before  called  "  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit."  That  exer 
cise  of  divine  power,  therefore,  to  which  he  refers  as  the 
ground  of  faith,  is  the  powerful  operation  of  the  Spirit,  bear 
ing  witness  with  and  by  the  truth  in  our  hearts.  A  faith 
which  is  founded  on  the  authority  of  the  church,  or  upon  ar 
guments  addressed  to  the  understanding,  or  even  on  the 
moral  power  of  the  truth  as  it  affects  the  natural  conscience, 
such  as  Felix  had,  is  unstable  and  inoperative.  But  a  faith 
founded  on  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  is  abiding,  infalli 
ble,  and  works  by  love  and  purifies  the  heart. 

In  these  verses,  therefore,  we  are  taught,  1.  That  the  pro 
per  method  to  convert  men  hi  any  community,  Christian  or 
Pagan,  is  to  preach  or  set  forth  the  truth  concerning  the  per- 
Bon  and  work  of  Christ.  Whatever  other  means  are  used 
must  be  subordinate  and  auxiliary,  designed  to  remove  obsta 
cles,  and  to  gain  access  for  the  truth  to  the  mind,  just  as  the 
ground  is  cleared  of  weeds  and  brambles  in  order  to  prepare 


I.   CORINTHIANS  2,  5.6.  33 

it  for  the  precious  seed.  2.  The  proper  state  of  mind  in  which 
to  preach  the  gospel  is  the  opposite  of  self-confidence  or  care 
lessness.  The  gospel  should  be  preached  with  a  sense  of 
weakness  and  with  great  anxiety  and  solicitude.  3.  The  suc 
cess  of  the  gospel  does  not  depend  on  the  skill  of  the  preacher, 
but  on  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit.  4.  The  foundation  of 
saving  faith  is  not  reason,  i.  e.  not  arguments  addressed  to  the 
understanding,  but  the  power  of  God  as  exerted  with  and  by 
the  truth  upon  the  heart. 

6.  Howbeit  we  speak  wisdom  among  them  that  are 
perfect :  yet  not  the  wisdom  of  this  world,  nor  of  the 
princes  of  this  world,  that  come  to  nought. 

Paul  had  in  the  preceding  chapter,  vs.  17-31,  asserted  the 
insufficiency  of  human  wisdom,  and  in  vs.  1-5  of  this  chapter, 
he  had  said  he  was  not  a  teacher  of  human  wisdom.  Was  it  to 
be  inferred  from  this  that  he  despised  knowledge,  that  he  was 
an  illiterate  contemner  of  letters,  or  that  he  taught  nonsense  ? 
Far  from  it ;  he  taught  the  highest  wisdom.  It  is  plain  from 
this  whole  discussion,  that  by  the  wisdom  of  the  world,  Paul 
means  that  knowledge  of  God  and  divine  things  which  men 
derive  from  reason.  It  is  also  plain  that  what  he  says  of  the 
worthlessness  of  that  knowledge  has  reference  to  it  as  a  means 
of  salvation.  The  objection  urged  against  him  was,  that  he 
did  not  teach  philosophy.  His  answer  is,  philosophy  cannot 
save  men.  Whatever  may  be  its  value  within  its  own  sphere 
and  for  its  own  ends,  it  is  worse  than  useless  as  a  substitute 
for  the  gospel.  He  was  not  for  banishing  philosophy  from 
the  schools,  but  from  the  pulpit.  Let  the  dead  bury  the 
dead  ;  but  do  not  let  them  pretend  to  impart  life. 

Howbeit,  nevertheless,  i.  e.  '  although  we  do  not  teach  hu 
man  wisdom,  we  teach  the  true  wisdom.'  Among  them  that 
are  perfect  (lv  rots  reXctots),  i.  e.  the  mature,  the  full-grown,  the 
competent.  The  lv  here  is  not  redundant  as  though  the  sense 
were  to  the  perfect ;  but  has  its  proper  force  among.  Among 
one  class  of  men  the  doctrine  which  he  preached  was  regarded 
as  foolishness,  but  among  another  it  was  seen  to  be  divine  wis 
dom.  Who  are  meant  by  the  perfect  ?  There  are  two  an 
swers  to  this  question.  Some  say  they  were  the  advanced 
or  mature  Christians  as  distinguished  from  the  babes  in  Christ. 
Others  say,  they  were  believers  as  opposed  to  unbelievers ; 
those  taught  by  the  Spirit  and  thus  enabled  to  understand  the 


34  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  6. 

truth,  as  opposed  to  the  unrenewed.  According  to  this  view, 
Paul  means  to  say  that  the  gospel,  although  foolishness  to  the 
Greek,  was  the  highest  wisdom  in  the  estimation  of  the  truly 
enlightened.  In  favour  of  this  view  of  the  passage,  and  in 
opposition  to  the  other,  it  may  be  argued,  1.  That  those  who 
regarded  Paul's  doctrine  as  foolishness  were  not  the  babes  in 
Christ,  but  the  unrenewed,  "  the  wise  of  this  world ; "  conse 
quently  those  to  whom  it  was  wisdom  were  not  advanced 
Christians,  but  believers  as  such.  Throughout  the  whole 
context,  the  opposition  is  between  "  the  called  "  or  converted, 
and  the  unconverted,  and  not  between  one  class  of  believers 
and  another  class.  2.  If  "  the  perfect "  here  means  advanced 
Christians  as  distinguished  from  babes  in  Christ,  then  the  wis 
dom  which  Paul  preached  was  not  the  gospel  as  such,  but  its 
higher  doctrines.  But  this  cannot  be,  because  it  is  the  doc 
trine  of  the  cross,  of  Christ  crucified,  which  he  declares  to  be 
the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God,  1,  24.  And  the 
description  given  in  the  following  part  of  this  chapter  of  the 
wisdom  here  intended,  refers  not  to  the  higher  doctrines  of 
the  gospel  but  to  the  gospel  itself.  The  contrast  is  between 
the  wisdom  of  the  world  and  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  not  be 
tween  the  rudimental  and  the  higher  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
Besides,  what  are  these  higher  doctrines  which  Paul  preached 
only  to  the  elite  of  the  church  ?  No  one  knows.  Some  say 
one  thing,  and  some  another.  But  there  are  no  higher  doc 
trines  than  those  taught  in  this  epistle  and  in  those  to  the 
Romans  and  Ephesians,  all  addressed  to  the  mass  of  the  peo 
ple.  The  New  Testament  makes  no  distinction  between 
(Trurris  and  yi/6kris)  higher  and  lower  doctrines.  It  does  indeed 
speak  of  a  distinction  between  milk  and  strong  meat,  but  that 
is  a  distinction,  not  between  kinds  of  doctrine,  but  between  one 
mode  of  instruction  and  another.  In  catechisms  designed  for 
children  the  church  pours  out  all  the  treasures  of  her  know 
ledge,  but  in  the  form  of  milk,  i.  e.  in  a  form  adapted  to  the 
weakest  capacities.  For  all  these  reasons  we  conclude  that 
by  "  the  perfect "  the  apostle  means  the  competent,  the  people 
of  God  as  distinguished  from  the  men  of  the  world ;  and  by 
wisdom,  not  any  higher  doctrines,  but  the  simple  gospel, 
which  is  the  wisdom  of  God  as  distinguished  from  the  wisdom 
of  men. 

The  apostle  describes  this  wisdom,  first  negatively,  by  say 
ing  it  is  not  the  wisdom  of  this  world,  or,  wisdom  not  of  this 
world,  i.  e.  it  belongs  not  to  the  world,  and  is  not  attained  by 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  6.7.  35 

the  men  of  the  world.  Nor  of  the  princes  of  this  world.  This 
designation  includes  all  who  take  the  first  'rank  among  men ; 
men  of  influence,  whether  for  their  wisdom,  birth,  or  power. 
He  does  not  refer  exclusively  to  magistrates,  or  princes,  in  the 
restricted  sense  of  that  term.  This  seems  plain  from  the  con 
nection,  and  from  what  follows  in  v.  8.  Who  come  to  nought, 
i.  e.  whom  it  is  God's  purpose  to  confound,  as  taught  above. 
1,  28. 

7.  But  we  speak  the  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery, 
(even)  the  hidden  (wisdom),  which  God  ordained  before 
the  world  unto  our  glory. 

Having  in  v.  6  stated  what  this  wisdom  is  not,  he  here 
states  what  it  is.  It  is,  first,  the  wisdom  of  God ;  secondly,  it 
is  mysterious,  or  hidden ;  thirdly,  it  is  a  system  of  truth  which 
God  from  eternity  had  determined  to  reveal  for  the  salvation 
of  his  people.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  revelation  of  the  coun 
sels  of  eternity  in  reference  to  the  redemption  of  man. 

The  wisdom  of  God,  i.  e.  the  wisdom  derived  from  God; 
which  he  has  revealed,  as  distinguished  from  any  form  of 
knowledge  of  human  origin.  In  a  mystery.  The  word  mys 
tery  always  means  something  into  which  men  must  be  initi 
ated  ;  something  undiscoverable  by  human  reason.  Whether 
its  being  undiscoverable  arises  from  its  lying  in  the  future,  or 
because  hid  in  the  unrevealed  purposes  of  God,  or  from  its 
own  nature  as  beyond  our  comprehension,  is  not  determined 
by  the  signification  of  the  word,  but  is  to  be  learned  from  the 
context.  The  most  natural  connection  of  the  words  here  is 
with  what  precedes,  "wisdom  in  a  mystery,"  for  mysterious, 
or  hidden  wisdom,  as  is  immediately  explained  by  what  fol 
lows.  As  there  is  no  connecting  article  (between  <ro<f>iav  and 
pvo-Trjpiu)  in  the  original,  some  prefer  connecting  this  clause 
with  the  verb.  4  We  speak  in  a  mystery,'  i.  e.  as  declaring  a 
mystery  or  matter  of  revelation. 

Which  God  before  the  world  (-Trpo  TW  atwvwv),  before  the 
ages,  i.  e.  before  time,  or  from  eternity,  preordained  to  our 
glory— predetermined  in  reference  to  our  glory.  The  word 
glory  is  often  used  for  all  the  benefits  of  salvation.  It  includes 
all  the  excellence  and  blessedness  which  Christ  has  secured 
for  his  people,  Rom.  5,  2.  The  idea  that  the  scheme  of  re 
demption,  which  the  apostle  here  calls  the  wisdom  of  God, 
was  from  eternity  formed  in  the  divine  mind,  far  out  of  the 


36  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  7.8. 

reach  of  human  penetration,  and  has  under  the  gospel  been 
made  known  for  the  salvation  of  men,  is  one  often  presented 
by  the  apostle,  Rom.  16,  25.  26.  Eph.  3,  9. 

8.  Which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world  knew : 
for  had  they  known  (it),  they  would  not  have  crucified 
the  Lord  of  glory. 

Which  refers  to  wisdom,  and  not  to  glory ;  because  the 
former,  and  not  the  latter,  is  the  subject  of  discourse.  '  Which 
wisdom  none  of  the  princes,  i.  e.  the  great  men,  of  this  world 
knew.'  The  reference  is  here  principally  to  the  rulers  of  the 
Jews,  the  authors  of  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  and  the  repre 
sentatives  of  the  class  to  which  they  belonged.  It  was  the 
world  in  its  princes  who  rejected  Christ. 

Lord  of  glory  is  a  title  of  divinity.  It  means,  possessor  of 
divine  excellence.  "  Who  is  the  King  of  glory  ?  The  LORD 
of  hosts,  he  is  the  King  of  glory,"  Ps.  24,  10.  Acts  7,  2.  James 
2, 1.  Eph.  1,  17.  The  person  crucified,  therefore,  was  a  divine 
person.  Hence  the  deed  was  evidence  of  inconceivable  blind 
ness  and  wickedness.  It  was  one  that  could  only  be  done 
through  ignorance.  "  And  now,  brethren,"  said  the  apostle 
Peter  to  the  Jews,  "  I  wot  that  through  ignorance  ye  did  it, 
as  did  also  your  rulers,"  Acts  3, 17.  The  fact  that  the  princes 
of  this  world  were  so  blind  as  not  to  see  that  Christ  was  the 
Lord  of  glory,  Paul  cites  as  proof  of  their  ignorance  of  the 
wisdom  of  God.  Had  they  known  the  one,  they  would  have 
known  the  other. 

This  passage  illustrates  a  very  important  principle  or  usage 
of  Scripture.  We  see  that  the  person  of  Christ  may  be  desig 
nated  from  his  divine  nature,  when  what  is  affirmed  of  him  is 
true  only  of  his  human  nature.  The  Lord  of  glory  was  cruci 
fied  ;  the  Son  of  God  was  born  of  a  woman ;  he  who  was  equal 
with  God  humbled  himself  to  be  obedient  unto  death.  In  like 
manner  we  speak  of  the  birth  or  death  of  a  man  without 
meaning  that  the  soul  is  born  or  dies;  and  the  Scriptures 
Bpeak  of  the  birth  and  death  of  the  Son  of  God,  without  mean- 
ing  that  the  divine  nature  is  subject  to  these  changes.  It  is 
also  plain  that  to  predicate  ignorance,  subjection,  suffering, 
death,  or  any  other  limitation  of  the  Son  of  God,  is  no  more 
inconsistent  with  the  divinity  of  the  person  so  designated, 
than  to  predicate  birth  and  death  of  a  man,  is  inconsistent 
With  the  immateriality  and  immortality  of  the  human  soul. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  8.9.  37 

Whatever  is  true  either  of  the  soul  or  body  may  be  predicated 
of  a  man  as  a  person ;  and  whatever  is  true  of  either  the  di 
vine  or  human  nature  of  Christ  may  be  predicated  of  Christ 
as  a  person.  We  need  not  hesitate  therefore  to  say  with  Paul, 
the  Lord  of  glory  was  crucified ;  or  even,  in  accordance  with 
the  received  text  in  Acts  20,  28,  "  God  purchased  the  church 
with  his  blood."  The  person  who  died  was  truly  God,  al 
though  the  divine  nature  no  more  died  than  the  soul  of  man 
does  when  the  breath  leaves  his  body. 

9.  But  as  it  is  written,  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear 
heard,  neither  have  entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the 
things  which  God  hath  prepared  for  them  that  love 
him. 

The  meaning  of  this  verse  is  plain,  although  there  are  sev 
eral  difficulties  connected  with  it.  Paul  had  said,  he  preached 
the  hidden  wisdom  of  God,  which  none  of  the  princes  of  this 
world  knew ;  he  taught  what  no  eye  hath  seen,  nor  ear  heard, 
nor  heart  conceived.  That  is,  he  preached  truth  undiscover- 
able  by  human  reason.  To  enter  into  the  heart  means  to  occur 
to  the  mind.  Compare  in  the  Hebrew,  Isaiah  65,  17. 

The  first  difficulty  connected  with  this  verse  is  a  gram 
matical  one,  which  does  not  appear  in  our  version  because  of 
the  freedom  of  the  translation.  Literally  the  passage  reads, 
'  What  no  eye  saw,  and  no  ear  heard,  and  no  heart  conceived, 
what  God  has  prepared  for  those  who  love  him — .'  The  sen 
tence  is  incomplete.  This  difficulty  may  be  met  either  by  a 
reference  to  the  usage  referred  to  in  the  note  on  the  last  verse 
of  the  preceding  chapter,  v.  31,  the  custom  of  the  apostles  to 
quote  passages  from  the  Old  Testament  without  weaving  them 
grammatically  into  their  own  discourses.  Or,  we  may  supply, 
as  many  do,  the  word  (XaXovpev)  '  we  speak  what  God  hath 
prepared  for  those  who  love  him.'  Or  this  verse  may  be  con 
nected  with  what  follows :  4  What  eye  hath  not  seen —  what 
(namely)  God  hath  prepared  for  his  people,  he  hath  revealed 
to  us  by  his  Spirit.' — The  first  of  these  explanations  is  gener 
ally  adopted  and  is  the  most  satisfactory. 

The  second  difficulty  relates  to  the  passage  quoted.  As  the 
formula,  "  As  it  is  written,"  is  never  used  by  the  apostles  except 
in  the  citation  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  it 
cannot  be  admitted  that  Paul  intended  to  quote  either  some 
book  now  lost,  or  some  apocryphal  writing.  If  it  be  assumed 


38  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  9.  10. 

that  he  intended  to  quote  Isaiah  64,  4,  the  difficulty  is  twofold, 
first,  the  language  or  words  are  different,  and  secondly,  the 
sense  is  different.  Isaiah  64,  4,  (or  3  in  the  Hebrew)  as  liter 
ally  translated  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  is  :  "  And  from  eter 
nity  they  have  not  heard,  they  have  not  perceived  by  the  ear, 
the  eye  hath  not  seen,  a  God  beside  thee  (who)  will  do  for 
(one)  waiting  for  him."  The  idea  is,  that  men  had  never 
known  any  other  God  than  Jehovah  who  did,  or  could  do, 
what  he  threatened  to  do.  The  Septuagint  expresses  the  same 
idea.  The  meaning  in  Isaiah  as  connected  with  what  pre 
cedes,  seems  to  be  that  the  reason  why  such  fearful  things  as 
had  been  predicted  were  to  be  expected  from  Jehovah  is,  that 
he  alone  had  proved  himself  able  to  perform  them.  To  get 
over  this  difficulty  some  propose  a  different  interpretation  of 
the  passage  in  the  prophet.  By  connecting  it  with  what  fol 
lows,  and  by  taking  the  word  God  in  the  vocative,  the  sense 
may  be,  '  From  eternity  they  have  not  heard,  nor  perceived 
by  the  ear,  eye  hath  not  seen,  O  God,  without  thee,  (i.  e.  with 
out  a  revelation)  what  he,  (or,  by  change  of  person)  what  thou 
hast  prepared  for  those  that  wait  for  thee.'  This  is  the  ver 
sion  given  in  the  Vulgate,  and  brings  the  passage  into  har 
mony"  with  the  apostle's  quotation. 

Others,  assuming  the  first-mentioned  interpretation  of  the 
passage  in  Isaiah  to  be  the  true  one,  consider  the  apostle  as 
using  scriptural  language  without  intending  to  give  the  sense 
of  the  original.  This  we  often  do,  and  it  is  not  unfrequently 
done  in  the  New  Testament,  Rom.  10,  18.  As  it  is  written  is 
not,  in  this  case,  the  form  of  quotation,  but  is  rather  equivalent 
to  saying,  '  To  use  the  language  of  Scripture.' 

A  third  explanation  of  this  difficulty  is,  that  the  apostle  did 
not  intend  to  quote  any  one  passage  of  scripture,  but  to  appeal 
to  its  authority  for  a  clearly  revealed  truth.  It  is  certainly 
taught  in  the  Old  Testament  that  the  human  mind  cannot 
penetrate  into  the  counsels  of  God ;  his  purposes  can  only  be 
known  by  a  supernatural  revelation.  This  is  the  truth  for 
which  the  apostle  cites  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament. 
There  is,  therefore,  not  the  slightest  ground  for  imputing  fail 
ure  of  memory,  or  an  erroneous  interpretation  to  the  inspired 
apostle. 

10.  But  God  hath  revealed  (them)  unto  us  by  his 
Spirit :  for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep 
tilings  of  God. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  10.11.12.  39 

What  was  undiscoverable  by  human  reason,  God  hath 
revealed  by  his  Spirit.  Unto  us,  i.  e.  unto  those  to  whom  this 
revelation,  was  made,  viz.  "  the  holy  apostles  and  prophets," 
Eph.  3,  5.  This  revelation  was  made  by  the  Spirit,  for  he 
alone  is  competent  to  make  it ;  for  he  alone  searches  the  deep 
things  of  God.  Searches,  i.  e.  explores,  accurately  and  thor 
oughly  knows.  The  word  does  not  express  the  process  of 
investigation,  but  rather  its  results,  viz.,  profound  knowledge. 
Thus  God  is  said  to  search  the  hearts  of  the  children^of  men, 
to  intimate  that  there  is  nothing  in  man  that  escapes  his  notice, 
Rom.  8,  27.  Rev.  2,  23.  So  there  is  nothing  in  God  unknown 
to  the  Spirit.  The  deep  things,  i.  e.  depths  of  God,  the  inmost 
recesses,  as  it  were,  of  his  being,  perfections  and  purposes. 
The  Spirit,  therefore,  is  fully  competent  to  reveal  that  wisdom 
which  had  for  ages  been  hid  in  God.  This  passage  proves  at 
once  the  personality  and  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  His 
personality,  because  intelligent  activity  is  ascribed  to  him  ;  he 
searches  ;  his  divinity,  because  omniscience  is  ascribed  to  him ; 
he  knows  all  that  God  knows. 

11.  For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man, 
save  the  spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him  ?  even  so  the 
things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God. 

This  verse  is  designed  to  illustrate  two  points  :^  First,  as  no 
one  knows  the  thoughts  of  a  man  but  the  man  himself,  so  no 
one  knows  the  thoughts  of  God,  but  God  himself.  Therefore 
no  one  but  a  divine  person  is  competent  to  make  a  revelation 
of  the  thoughts  and  purposes  of  God.  Second,  as  every  man 
does  know  his  own  thoughts,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  knows  the 
thoughts  of  God.  His  knowledge  of  what  is  in  God  is  nnalo- 
gous^to  that  which  we  have  of  the  contents  of  our  own  con 
sciousness.  The  analogies  of  scripture,  however,  are  not  to  be 
pressed  beyond  the  point  which  they  are  intended  to  illustrate. 
The  point  to  be  illustrated  here  is,  the  knowledge  of  the  Spirit. 
He  knows  what  is  in  God,  as  we  know  what  is  in  ourselves. 
It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  this  that  the  Spirit  of  God  bears 
in  other  points  the  same  relation  to  God,  that  our  spirits  do 
to  us. 

12.  Now  we  have  received,  not  the  spirit  of  the 
world,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God ;  that  we  might 
know  the  things  that  are  freely  given  to  us  of  God. 


40  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  12.13. 

The  apostle  had  set  forth  two  sources  of  knowledge,  the 
one,  human ;  the  other,  divine  ;  the  one,  the  informing  prin 
ciple  which  is  in  man ;  the  other,  the  informing  principle 
which  is  of  God.  And  he  asserts  that  the  source  of  that  wis 
dom  or  knowledge  which  he  communicated,  was  not  the 
former,  but  the  latter.  It  was  not  human  reason,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  spirit  of  the  icorld  does  not  here  mean 
a  worldly  disposition  or  temper;  but  spirit  is  that  which 
knows  and  teaches.  The  spirit  of  the  world  is  therefore  a 
periphrase  for  reason,  which  is  the  principle  of  knowledge  in 
men.  When  Paul  says  he  had  not  received  that  spirit,  he 
means  that  human  reason  was  not  the  source  of  the  know 
ledge  which  he  communicated.  The  Spirit  which  is  of  God, 
is  the  Holy  Spirit  as  proceeding  from  him  and  sent  by  him  as 
the  instructor  of  men.  To  receive  the  Spirit  is  to  be  the  sub 
ject  of  his  influence.  It,  therefore,  depends  upon  the  context 
and  on  the  nature  of  the  influences  spoken  of,  who  are  intended 
by  those  who  receive  the  Spirit.  Here  the  whole  connection 
shows  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  revelation  and  inspira 
tion  ;  and  therefore  we  must  mean  we  apostles,  (or  Paul  him 
self,)  and  not  we  Christians. 

That,  i.  e.  in  order  that,  we  might  know  the  things  freely 
given  to  us  of  God,  i.  e.  the  things  graciously  revealed  by 
God.  This  clause  does  not  refer  to  inward  spiritual  blessings 
now  enjoyed  by  believers,  nor  to  the  future  blessedness  of  the 
saints,  except  so  far  as  these  are  included  in  the  general  sub 
ject  of  Paul's  preaching.  The  connection  is  with  v.  10. 
4  What  human  reason  could  not  discover,  God  hath  revealed 
to  us  apostles,  in  order  that  we  might  know  what  he  has  thus 
graciously  communicated.'  The  subject  is  the  wisdom  of  God, 
the  gospel,  as  distinguished  from  the  wisdom  of  the  world. 
This  is  clear  both  from  what  precedes  and  from  what  follows. 

13.  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  teacheth  ;  comparing  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual. 

Which  things;  the  things  revealed  by  the  Spirit.  We 
also  speak.  We  do  not  only  know,  we  also  communicate  the 
things  which  God  has  revealed.  How  is  this  done  ?  What 
language  did  the  apostle  use  in  communicating  what  he  had 
Deceived  by  divine  revelation  ?  He  answers,  according  to  his 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  13.  41 

usual  method,  first,  negatively ;  and  then,  positirely.  It  was 
not  done  "  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth."  This 
includes  two  things.  The  words  used  by  the  apostle  were 
neither  such  as  the  skill  of  the  rhetorician  would  suggest,  nor 
such  as  his  own  mind,  uninfluenced  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  sug 
gested.  The  affirmative  statement  is,  that  the  words  used 
were  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  verbal  inspiration, 
or  the  doctrine  that  the  writers  of  the  Scriptures  were  con 
trolled  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  choice  of  the  words  which 
they  employed  in  communicating  divine  truth.  This^has  been 
stigmatized  as  "the  mechanical  theory  of  inspiration,"  de 
grading  the  sacred  penmen  into  mere  machines.  It  is  objected 
to  this  doctrine  that  it  leaves  the  diversity  of  style  which 
marks  the  different  portions  of  the  Bible,  unaccounted  for 
But,  if  God  can  control  the  thoughts  of  a  man  without  making 
him  a  machine,  why  cannot  he  control  his  language  ?  And 
why  may  he  not  render  each  writer,  whether  poetical  or 
prosaic,  whether  polished  or  rude,  whether  aphoristic  or 
logical,  infallible  in  the  use  of  his  characteristic  style  ?  If  the 
language  of  the  Bible  be  not  inspired,  then  we  have  the  truth 
communicated  through  the  discolouring  and  distorting  medium 
of  human  imperfection.  Paul's  direct  assertion  is  that  the 
words  which  he  used,  were  taught  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual;  or  rather, 
joining  spiritual  things  to  spiritual  words,  or,  explaining  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  in  the  words  of  the  Spirit.  For  the  use  of 
(rvyKptVetv  in  the  sense  of  interpreting  or  explaining,  see  Gen. 
40,  8.  36.  41,  12.  15.  Dan.  5, 12.  in  the  LXX.  This  interpre 
tation  is  demanded  by  the  connection.  The  apostle  had  said 
that  the  truths  which  he  taught  were  revealed  by  the  Spirit ; 
and  that  the  words  which  he  used  were  taught  by  the  Spirit, 
which  he  sums  up  by  saying,  he  explained  spiritual  things  in 
spiritual  words.  This  view  of  the  passage  is  perfectly  consist 
ent  with  the  signification  of  the  words.  The  original  word 
(crvyKpiVw)  means  not  only  mentally  to  combine  and  hence  to 
compare,  but  also  to  join  together ;  and  also  to  explain.  ^  It 
is  used  in  the  Septuagint  to  express  the  act  of  interpreting 
dreams  or  enigmas.  The  clause  in  question  may,  therefore, 
be  translated  either,  combining  spiritual  things  with  spiritual 
words  ;  or,  explaining  the  one  by  the  other.  Besides,  the 
word  'spiritual  (Trveu/zcmKots),  which  has  no  substantive  con 
nected  with  it,  most  naturally  agrees  with  words  (A-oyots)  un 
derstood,  which  immediately  precedes. 


42  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  13.14. 

The  other  interpretation,  comparing  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual,  whether  it  means  comparing  the  Old  Testament  with 
the  New,  as  some  say  ;  or,  as  others  understand  it,  comparing 
one  portion  of  the  Spirit's  teaching  with  another,  is  inconsist 
ent  with  the  context.  Much  less  can  be  said  in  favour  of  a 
third  interpretation  of  this  clause  adopted  by  many,  who  un 
derstand  the  apostle  to  say,  he  explains  spiritual  things  to 
spiritual  persons.  This  anticipates  what  follows. 

14.  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God;  for  they  are  foolishness  unto 
him :  neither  can  he  know  (them),  because  they  are 
spiritually  discerned. 

Although  ike  things  of  the  Spirit,  that  is,  the  truths  of  his 
word,  are  so  clearly  revealed ;  and  although  they  have  been 
communicated  in  language  taught  by  the  Spirit,  yet,  by  a  cer 
tain  class  of  men,  they  are  rejected.  That  is,  they  are  not 
believed,  appreciated,  and  obeyed.  This  class  of  men  is  called 
natural.  The  meaning  of  this  term  cannot  be  determined  by 
the  mere  signification  of  the  word  (i/or^os),  for  it  signifies 
both  sensual  (i.  e.  under  the  influence  of  the  lower  animal 
principles  of  our  nature),  and  also  natural,  i.  e.  under  the  in 
fluence  of  what  belongs  to  the  nature  of  man  as  it  now  exists, 
as  distinguished  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  Many  commentators 
say  that  the  ({J/VX^KOL)  natural  are  the  sensual,  and  the  opposite 
class  the  (Tri/cu/xtm/cot)  spiritual  are  the  intellectual,  the  rational, 
those  under  the  influence  of  the  (Tn/eO/xa)  spirit  in  the  sense  of 
the  higher,  as  distinguished  from  the  lower,  principles  of  our 
nature.  According  to  this  view,  Paul  means  to  say,  that 
although  sensual  men  do  not  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit, 
intellectual  men  do.  This  interpretation,  however,  cannot  be 
correct.  1.  Because  it  gives  a  meaning  to  the  passage  not 
only  inconsistent  with  the  direct  assertion  of  the  apostle,  but 
opposed  to  the  whole  drift  and  design  of  his  argument.  He 
not  only  declares  that  it  was  not  the  wise,  the  refined  and  cul 
tivated  who  received  the  gospel — but  his  whole  object  is  to 
prove  that  the  reason  of  man,  or  man  in  the  highest  develop 
ment  of  his  nature,  can  neither  discover  "  the  things  of  the 
Spirit,"  nor  receive  them  when  revealed.  It  is  of  God,  and 
not  because  of  their  superior  culture  or  refinement,  that  men 
are  in  Christ,  1,  30.  These  things  are  hid  from  the  wise  and 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  14.  43 

prudent,  and  revealed  unto  babes,  Matt.  11,  25.  2.  Because 
the  word  spiritual,  when  used  in  the  New  Testament  of  per 
sons,  never  means  intellectual.  It  always  means  one  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  therefore  must  have  that 
meaning  here.  3.  The  very  distinction  designed  to  be  ex 
pressed  here  and  elsewhere  by  the  terms  natural  and  spiritual, 
is  that  between  nature  and  grace,  between  the  natural  and 
supernatural,  James  3,  15.  Jude  19.  4.  The  reason  assigned 
why  the  natural  man  does  not  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit, 
viz.,  because  "  they  are  spiritually  discerned,"  does  not  mean 
'  because  they  are  rationally  discerned,'  and  therefore  it  is  not 
the  want  of  due  cultivation  of  the  reason  that  characterizes 
the  natural  man,  but  the  want  of  the  Spirit.  By  natural  man, 
therefore,  we  must  understand  the  unrenewed  man ;  the  man 
under  the  influence  of  human  nature,  as  distinguished  from 
those  who  are  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
natural  or  unrenewed  man  does  not  receive  the  things  of  the 
Spirit.  As  the  things  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  revealed 
address  themselves  not  only  to  the  intellect  as  true,  but  to 
the  conscience  as  obligatory  and  to  the  affections  as  excellent 
and  lovely,  not  to  receive  them,  is  not  to  recognize,  in  our 
inward  experience,  their  truth,  authority,  and  excellence. 

For  they  are  foolishness  unto  them.  The  word  (/xcopos) 
foolish,  as  an  adjective,  means  in  Greek,  dull,  insipid,  taste 
less  /  as  a  substantive,  one  that  is  dull,  or  stupid ;  that  is,  one 
on  whom  truth,  duty  and  excellence  do  not  produce  their 
proper  effect,  foolishness  (/xwpta)  is  that  which  is  to  us  ab 
surd,  insipid,  powerless.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  are  foolishness  to  the  natural  man,  it  means 
that  they  are  to  him  absurd,  insipid  and  distasteful. 

And  he  cannot  know  them.  To  know  is  to  discern  the 
nature  of  any  thing,  whether  as  true,  or  good,  or  beautiful. 
This  is  in  accordance  with  the  constant  usage  of  scripture. 
To  know  God  is  to  discern  his  truth  and  excellence ;  to  know 
the  truth  is  to  apprehend  it  as  true  and  good.  The  wise  are  the 
good,  that  is,  those  who  discern  the  truth  and  excellence  of 
divine  things.  The  fools  are  the  wicked,  those  who  are  insen 
sible  to  truth  and  goodness.  What,  therefore,  the  apostle  here 
affirms  of  the  natural  or  unrenewed  man  is,  that  he  cannot 
discern  the  truth,  excellence,  or  beauty  of  divine  things.  He 
cannot  do  it.  It  is  not  simply  that  he  does  not  do  it ;  or  that 
he  will  not  do  it,  but  he  cannot.  We  do  not  say  of  a  clown 
that  he  will  not  discern  the  truth,  excellence,  and  beauty  of  a 


44  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  14.15. 

poem.  The  difficulty  is  not  merely  in  his  will  but  in  his  whole 
inward  state.  The  thing  is  foolishness  to  him.  So  the  scrip 
tures  do  not  say  of  the  natural  man  merely  that  he  will  not 
discern  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  because  the  difficulty  in  his 
case  is  not  in  the  will  alone,  but  in  his  whole  inward  state. 
He  cannot  know  them.  And  the  reason  is, 

Because  they  are  spiritually  discerned.  That  is,  because 
they  are  discerned  through  the  Spirit.  Therefore  those  who 
have  not  the  Spirit  cannot  discern  them.  If  the  effect  of  sin 
on  the  human  soul  is  to  make  it  blind  to  the  truth,  excellence 
and  beauty  of  divine  things ;  if,  as  the  apostle  asserts,  the 
natural,  or  unrenewed,  man  is  in  such  a  state  that  the  things  of 
the  Spirit  are  foolishness  to  him,  absurd,  insipid  and  distaste- 
ful,  then  it  follows  that  he  can  discern  them  only  through  the 
Spirit.  His  inward  state  must  be  changed  by  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  before  he  can  apprehend  the  truth  and  excellence 
of  the  gospel.  There  must  be  congeniality  between  the  per- 
ceiver  and  the  thing  perceived.  Only  the  pure  in  heart  can 
see  God.  If  our  gospel  be  hid,  says  the  apostle,  it  is  hid  to 
them  that  are  lost.  The  only  hope  of  the  unrenewed,  there 
fore,  is  in  doing  as  the  blind  did  in  the  days  of  Christ.  They 
must  go  to  him  for  spiritual  discernment ;  and  those  who  go 
to  him  he  will  in  no  wise  cast  out. 

15.  But  lie  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all  things,  yet 
he  himself  is  judged  of  no  man. 

To  judge  here  means  to  discern,  to  appreciate,  and  thus 
pass  judgment  upon.  As  the  original  word  is  the  same  in  this 
as  in  the  preceding  verse,  there  is  no  good  reason  why  the 
translation  should  vary.  The  spiritual  man  discerns  the 
things  which  are  spiritually  discerned,  though  he  himself  is 
not  discerned  or  properly  appreciated  by  any  natural  man. 
The  all  things  here  spoken  of  are  limited  by  the  context 
to  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  not  of  the  officers  of  the 
church  only,  nor  of  the  church  collectively,  but  of  each  and 
every  man  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells,  that  the  apostle 
affirms  this  ability  to  discern  the  truth,  excellence  and  beauty 
of  divine  things.  It  is  as  impossible  that  one  man  should  dis 
cern  for  another  what  is  true  and  good,  as  that  one  man 
should  see  for  another.  We  must  see  for  ourselves  or  not  at 
all.  The  right  of  private  judgment  in  matters  of  religion,  is 
inseparable  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit.  Those  who  can 


I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  15.16.  45 

see,  have  the  right  to  see.  It  is  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  reveal  the  truth,  to  open  our  eyes  to  discern  it  in  its  true 
nature,  and  to  feel  its  power.  It  is  on  this  demonstration  of 
the  Spirit,  as  taught  above,  that  saving  faith  is  founded.  And 
as  this  demonstration  is  granted  to  every  one  who  has  the 
Spirit,  the  faith  of  the  Christian  is  founded  neither  on  the 
wisdom  of  men  nor  on  the  authority  of  the  church,  and  is 
subject  to  neither. 

Yet  he  himself  is  judged  of  no  man.  This  again  is  limit 
ed  by  the  context.  He  is  appreciated  by  no  man  who  has 
not  the  Spirit.  Paul  afterwards  says  it  was  to  him  a  small 
matter  to  be  judged  by  man's  judgment,  4,  3.  He  is  not 
here  speaking  of  the  legitimate  subjection  of  the  believer  to 
his  brethren ;  for  he  elsewhere  teaches  that  those  who  have 
the  Spirit  may  sit  in  judgment  on  those  who  profess  to  be 
spiritual,  and  determine  how  far  they  are  really  led  by  the 
Spirit.  And  he  gives  the  rule  by  which  that  judgment  is  to 
be  directed,  5,  9-12.  12,  3.  Gal.  1,  8.  If  any  man  profess  to 
be  spiritual,  and  yet  does  what  the  Spirit  in  his  word  forbids, 
or  denies  what  the  Spirit  teaches,  we  know  that  he  deceives 
himself,  and  that  the  truth  is  not  in  him.  We  must  try  the 
spirits,  whether  they  be  of  God.  This  is  true,  and  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  what  the  apostle  here  says,  which  only  means 
that  the  spiritual  man  cannot  be  discerned  or  estimated  aright 
by.those  who  are  not  spiritual. 

16.  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord, 
that  he  may  instruct  him  ?  But  we  have  the  mind  of 
Christ. 

This  is  a  confirmation  of  what  precedes.  No  one  can 
judge  a  spiritual  man,  for  that  would  be  to  judge  the  Lord. 
The  Lord  had  revealed  certain  doctrines.  The  spiritual  dis 
cern  those  doctrines  to  be  true.  For  any  man  to  pronounce 
them  false,  and  to  judge  those  who  held  them,  supposes  he  is 
able  to  teach  the  Lord.  As  no  one  can  do  this,  no  one  can 
judge  those  who  have  the  mind  of  Christ,  that  is,  those  whom 
Christ  by  his  Spirit  has  taught  the  truth.  Syllogistically 
stated,  the  argument  would  stand  thus :  No  one  can  instruct 
the  Lord.  We  have  the  mind  of  the  Lord.  Therefore  no  one 
can  instruct  or  judge  us.  The  first  member  of  this  syllogism 
is  expressed  in  the  language  of  Isaiah  40,  15,  according  to 
the  Septuagint.  The  philosophers  of  Greece  and  the  scribes 


46  I.  CORINTHIANS  2,  16. 

among  the  Jews  had  sat  in  judgment  upon  Paul,  and  pro 
nounced  his  preaching  foolishness.  He  tells  them  they  were 
not  competent  judges.  The  natural  man  cannot  discern  the 
things  of  the  Spirit,  and  is  incompetent  to  judge  those  whom 
the  Spirit  has  taught.  As  what  we  teach  is  the  mind  of  the 
Lord,  to  condemn  our  doctrine,  or  to  judge  us  as  the  teach 
ers  of  those  doctrines,  is  to  condemn  the  Lord. 

What  in  the  Old  Testament  is  said  of  Jehovah  is  often  in 
the  New  Testament  applied  to  Christ.  This  is  the  case  here. 
Who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ?  means,  who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  Jehovah  ?  We  have  the  mind  of  Christ, 
therefore,  means,  we  have  the  mind  of  Jehovah.  What  is 
true  of  the  one  is  true  of  the  other.  The  same  person  who  is 
revealed  in  the  New  Testament  as  the  Son  of  God,  was  re 
vealed  of  old  as  Jehovah.  This  teaches  how  firm  a  foundation 
the  believer  has  for  his  faith,  and  how  impossible  it  is  for  any 
one  taught  by  the  Spirit  to  give  up  his  convictions  to  the  au 
thority  of  men. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Transition  from  the  defence  of  his  mode  of  preaching  to  the  subject  of  their 
divisions,  vs.  1-5.  The  true  relation  of  ministers  to  the  church  as  ser 
vants,  and  not  party  leaders,  vs.  7-23. 

JReproof  of  the  Corinthians  for  their  dissensions  about  their 
religious  teachers.     Vs.  1-23. 

THE  apostle  resumes  the  subject  of  the  contentions  in  the 
church  of  Corinth.  He  passes  to  that  subject  from  the  de 
fence  of  his  mode  of  preaching  by  a  natural  association.  One 
of  the  objections  against  him  was,  that  his  preaching  was  too 
simple.  He  answers,  he  could  not  make  it  otherwise,  because 
they  were  mere  babes  in  Christ.  The  proof  of  their  being  in 
this  infantile  or  carnal  state  was  that  strifes  and  divisions  exist 
ed  among  them ;  one  saying,  I  am  of  Paul ;  and  another,  I  am 
of  Apollos,  vs.  1-4. 

As  their  dissensions  had  reference  to  their  religious  teach 
ers,  the  apostle  endeavours  to  correct  the  evil  by  presenting 


I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  1.  47 

the  ministerial  office  in  its  true  light.  1.  Ministers  were  not 
heads  of  schools  or  rival  sects  as  were  the  Grecian  philoso 
phers,  but  mere  servants,  without  any  authority  or  power  of 
their  own.  One  may  plant,  and  another  water,  but  the  whole 
increase  is  of  God,  vs.  5-7.  2.  Ministers  are  one.  They  have 
one  master  and  one  work.  They  may  have  different  depart 
ments  in  that  great  work,  but  they  are  like  fellow-labourers  on 
the  same  farm,  or  fellow-builders  on  the  same  temple,  vs.  8.  9. 
3.  In  the  discharge  of  their  respective  duties  they  incur  a  great 
responsibility.  If  they  attempt  to  build  up  the  temple  of  God 
with  the  rubbish  of  their  own  wisdom,  they  will  be  severely' 
punished.  If  they  employ  the  materials  which  God  has  furnished, 
they  will  be  rewarded,  vs.  10-15.  4.  It  js  because  the  church 
is  the  temple  of  God,  that  ministers  will  be  held  to  this  strict 
account  for  the  doctrines  which  they  preach,  and  for  the  way 
in  which  they  execute  their  office,  vs.  16.  17.  5.  No  minister 
need  deceive  himself  in  this  matter.  He  cannot  preach  a 
higher  wisdom  than  the  wisdom  of  God ;  and  to  learn  that 
wisdom  he  must  renounce  his  own,  vs.  18-20.  6.  Therefore 
the  people  should  not  place  their  confidence  in  ministers,  who 
belong  to  the  church,  and  not  the  church  to  them.  To  the 
interests  and  consummation  of  the  church,  all  things,  visible 
and  invisible,  are  made  subservient,  vs.  21-23. 

1.  And  I,  brethren,  could  not  speak  unto  you  as 
unto  spiritual,  but  as  unto  carnal,*  (even)  as  unto  babes 
in  Christ. 

There  were  two  classes  of  opponents  of  the  apostle  in 
Corinth.  The  false  teachers,  some  of  whom  he  denounces  as 
anti-Christian,  and  others  he  speaks  of  as  only  errorists ;  and 
secondly,  those  members  of  the  church  whom  these  false 
teachers  had  seduced.  As  against  the  false  teachers  and  the 
unconverted  Jews  and  Greeks  he  upheld  the  simple  gospel  as 
higher  than  the  wisdom  of  the  world.  His  only  answer  to 
their  objection  that  he  did  not  preach  with  "the  wisdom  of 
words,"  was  that  the  wisdom  of  the  world  was  foolishness  with 

*  Instead  of  ffapitiKois,  unto  carnal,  acli,  Tischendorf  and  others  read 

(rapittj/ois,  to  those  made  ofjlesh^  comp.  2  Cor.  3,  3.  The  latter  term,  used  in  a 
moral  sense,  would  be  stronger  than  the  former,  as  indicating  the  very  nature 
as  carnal.  In  all  the  places  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  form  <rdpKivo!> 
appears,  except  in  2  Cor  3,  3,  the  reading  is  doubtful.  Rom.  7,  14.  Heb.  7, 
10,  and  here. 


48  I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  1.2. 

God.  To  the  objection,  as  urged  by  believers,  that  his  preach 
ing  was  too  elementary,  he  answered,  it  was  adapted  to  their 
state.  He  could  only  speak  to  them  as  to  children. 

They  were  babes  in  Christ,  that  is,  children  in  Christian 
knowledge  and  experience.  This  idea  he  expresses  by  saying 
they  were  not  spiritual  but  carnal.  Now  as  all  Christians 
are  spiritual,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  term  is  used  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  to  say  that  men  are  not  spiritual  in  that 
sense,  would  be  to  say  they  are  not  Christians.  Here,  how 
ever,  the  apostle  tells  those  whom  he  admits  to  be  Christians, 
and  whom  he  calls  brethren,  that  they  are  not  spiritual.  He 
must  use  the  word  therefore  in  a  modified  sense.  This  is  a 
very  common  usage.  When  we  predicate  spirituality  of  a 
Christian  as  compared  to  other  Christians,  we  mean  that  he  is 
eminently  spiritual.  But  when  the  distinction  is  between 
Christians  and  the  world,  then  every  Christian  is  said  to  be 
spiritual.  In  like  manner  we  speak  of  some  Christians  as 
worldly  or  carnal,  without  intending  to  deny  that  they  are 
Christians.  It  is  obvious  that  the  apostle  uses  the  terms  here 
in  the  same  manner.  He  is  not  speaking  of  Christians  as  dis 
tinguished  from  the  world,  but  of  one  class  of  Christians  as 
distinguished  from  another. 

2.  I  have  fed  you  with  milk  and  not  with  meat ; 
for  hitherto  ye  were  not  able  (to  bear  it),  neither  yet 
now  are  ye  able. 

As  they  were  children,  he  had  treated  them  accordingly. 
He  had  fed  them  with  milk;  literally,  'I  gave  you  milk  to 
drink  and  not  meat.'  A  concise  form  of  expression.  What 
is  the  distinction  which  the  apostle  here  makes  between  milk 
and  meat  ?  It  is  evidently  not  the  distinction  between  the 
wisdom  of  the  world  and  the  wisdom  of  God.  Paul  did  not 
preach  the  wisdom  of  the  world  to  babes  in  Christ,  and  the 
wisdom  of  God  to  advanced  Christians.  Neither  does  he 
sanction  any  thing  of  the  nature  of  the  Disciplina  Arcani,  or 
doctrine  of  the  hidden  essence  of  Christianity,  which  was  in 
troduced  in  later  times.  For  the  sake  either  of  conciliating 
the  heathen,  or  of  preventing  beginners  from  forming  false 
notions  of  the  gospel,  it  became  common  deliberately  to  con 
ceal  the  truth.  This  is  the  foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  re 
serve,  as  it  is  called,  which  the  Romish  church  has  so  exten- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  2.3.  49 

sively  practised  and  taught,  inculcating  a  blind  faith,  and 
keeping  the  people  in  ignorance.  Neither  is  the  distinction 
that  which  also  extensively  prevailed  in  the  early  church  after 
the  age  of  the  apostles,  between  truth  as  the  object  of  faith 
and  truth  as  the  object  of  knowledge.  This  is  a  distinction 
true  in  itself,  but  as  then  understood,  it  meant  nothing  less 
than  the  difference  between  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  and  the 
speculations  of  men.  Philosophers  of  our  own,  and  of  every 
other  age,  have  been  willing  to  allow  the  people  the  truth  as 
presented  in  the  Scriptures,  provided  they  themselves  were 
allowed  to  explain  them  away  into  philosophical  formulas. 
The  true  nature  of  the  distinction  is  to  be  learnt  partly  from 
the  import  of  the  figure,  and  partly  from  parallel  passages. 
The  import  of  the  figure  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  dif 
ference  is  rather  in  the  mode  of  instruction,  than  in  the  things 
taught.  The  same  truth  in  one  form  is  milk,  in  another  form 
strong  meat.  "Christ,"  says  Calvin,  "is  milk  for  babes,  and 
strong  meat  for  men."  Every  doctrine  which  can  be  taught 
to  theologians,  is  taught  to  children.  We  teach  a  child  that 
God  is  a  Spirit,  every  where  present  and  knowing  all  things  ; 
and  he  understands  it.  We  tell  him  that  Christ  is  God  and 
man  in  two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  for  ever.  This  to 
the  child  is  milk,  but  it  contains  food  for  angels.  The  truth 
expressed  in  these  propositions  may  be  expanded  indefinitely, 
and  furnish  nourishment  for  the  highest  intellects  to  eternity. 
The  difference  between  milk  and  strong  meat,  according  to 
this  view,  is  simply  the  difference  between  the  more  or  less 
perfect  development  of  the  things  taught.  This  view  is  con 
firmed  by  those  passages  in  which  the  same  distinction  is 
made.  Thus  in  Hebrews  5,  11-14,  the  apostle  speaks  of  his 
readers  as  having  need  of  milk  and  not  of  strong  meat.  The 
reference  is  there  to  the  distinction  between  the  simple  doc 
trine  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ  and  the  full  development  of 
that  doctrine.  The  important  truth  is  that  there  are  not  two 
sets  of  doctrine,  a  higher  and  a  lower  form  of  faith,  one  for 
the  learned  and  the  other  for  the  unlearned ;  there  is  no  part 
of  the  gospel  which  we  are  authorized  to  keep  back  from  the 
people.  Every  thing  which  God  has  revealed  is  to  be  taught 
to  every  one  just  so  fast  and  so  far  as  he  has  the  capacity3 to 
receive  it. 

3.  For  ye  are  yet  carnal :  for  whereas  (there  is) 

3 


50  I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  3. 

among  you  envying,  and  strife,  and  divisions,  are  ye  not 
carnal,  and  walk  as  men  ? 

Their  unfitness  to  receive  any  other  nourishment  than  that 
adapted  to  children,  is  proved  by  their  being  carnal  ;  and  their 
being  carnal  is  proved  by  the  divisions  existing  among  them. 
Ye  are  yet  carnal,  i.  e.  under  the  influence  of  the  flesh,  or  cor 
rupt  nature.  They  were  imperfectly  sanctified.  Even  Paul 
said  of  himself,  '  I  am  carnal.'  This  term  therefore  may  bo 
applied  even  to  the  most  advanced  Christians.  Its  definite 
meaning  depends  on  the  context. 

The  existence  among  them  of  the  evils  mentioned  was 
proof  of  their  low  religious  state.  Of  these  evils  the  first  was 
envying  (^A.o?).  The  word  means  zeal,  fervid  feeling.  Whether 
good  or  bad,  and  of  what  particular  kind  depends  on  the  con 
nection.  Here  party  spirit  would  seem  to  be  the  special  evil 
intended.  This  gives  rise  to  strife  (epts),  and  that  again  to 
divisions  (Si^oo-rao-ia),  literally,  standing  apart  /  here  not  sects, 


but  parties.  If  these  things  are  among  you,  asks  the  apostle, 
are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk  as  men  ?  '  To  walk  as  mentis  to 
be  guided  by  principles  which  belong  to  men,  as  distinguished 
from  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  doctrine  that  human  nature  is  cor 
rupt,  and  that  all  holiness  in  man  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  is  taken  for  granted  every  where  in  the  Bible.  There 
fore  "the  world"  means  the  wicked  or  the  unrenewed;  to  be 
worldly,  or  to  act  after  the  manner  of  men,  is  to  act  wickedly. 

The  description  here  given  of  the  state  of  the  church  of 
Corinth  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  commendations  bestowed 
upon  it  in  the  beginning  of  the  first  chapter.  Viewed  in  com 
parison  with  the  heathen  around  them,  or  even  with  other 
churches,  the  Corinthians  deserved  the  praise  there  given 
them.  But  judged  by  the  standard  of  the  gospel,  or  of  their 
privileges,  they  deserved  the  censures  which  the  apostle  so 
faithfully  administers.  Besides,  in  addressing  the  same 
church,  the  apostle  has  sometimes  one  class  of  its  members  in 
view,  and  sometimes  another.  He  therefore  sometimes  speaks 
as  if  they  were  all  Jews,  at  other  times  as  though  they  were 
all  Gentiles  ;  sometimes  as  though  they  were  weak  and  nar 
row-minded,  and  sometimes  as  if  they  were  latitudinarian  — 
one  time  he  addresses  them  as  if  they  were  in  a  high  state  of 
piety,  and  at  another,  as  if  they  were  in  a  very  low  state. 
His  language  is  to  be  limited  in  its  application  to  those  for 
whom  the  context  in  any  case  may  show  it  was  intended. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  4.5.  51 

4.  Por  while  one  saith,  I  am  of  Paul ;  and  another, 
I  (am)  of  Apollos  ;  are  ye  not  carnal  ? 

This  confirms  the  fact  that  there  were  such  divisions  among 
them  as  proved  them  to  be  governed  by  unholy  feelings,  and 
also  explains  the  nature  of  those  divisions.  There  were  in 
Corinth,  as  appears  from  1,  12,  more  parties  than  two  ;  but 
the  apostle  confines  himself  to  those  here  mentioned,  because 
throughout  the  whole  discussion  he  has  had  reference  to  the 
opposition  of  the  Grecian  element  in  the  church  ;  and  because 
from  the  intimate  relation  between  himself  and  Apollos,  he 
could  speak  of  him  as  freely  as  he  did  of  himself.  As  the 
party  spirit  which  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Corinthian 
church  arose  from  wrong  views  of  the  relation  of  ministers  to 
the  church,  the  apostle  endeavours  to  correct  the  evil  by  pre 
senting  that  relation  in  its  true  light. 

5.  Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  min 
isters  by  whom  ye  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to 
every  man  ? 

This  passage  may  read,  '  Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is 
Apollos  ?  ministers  by  whom  ye  believed,'  &c.  Ministers  are 
mere  instruments  in  the  hands  of  God.  The  doctrines  which 
they  preach  are  not  their  own  discoveries,  and  the  power 
which  renders  their  preaching  successful  is  not  in  them.  They 
are  nothing ;  and  therefore  it  is  an  entire  perversion  of  their 
relation  to  the  church  to  make  them  the  heads  of  parties.  In 
the  oldest  MSS.  the  name  of  Apollos  stands  first ;  and  some 
of  them  have  ri  instead  of  TI'S.  '  What  then  is  Apollos,  and 
what  is  Paul.'  Both  these  emendations  are  adopted  by  the 
later  editors. 

Paul  and  Apollos,  men  of  the  highest  office  and  of  the  high 
est  gifts,  are  ministers  (Sta/covot)  waiters,  attendants,  servants  ; 
so  called  not  from  their  relation  to  God  merely,  as  those  who 
serve  him,  but  also  because  of  their  relation  to  the  church, 
whose  they  are,  to  whom  they  belong,  and  whom  they  serve. 

Ey  whom,  i.  e.  by  whose  instrumentality,  ye  are  believers, 
or,  became  believers.  The  design  of  the  ministry  is  to  bring 
men  to  "  the  obedience  of  faith,"  Rom.  1,5.  It  is  appointed 
for  that  end  by  God  himself,  and  therefore  it  is  of  the  greatest 
importance  and  value.  This  Paul  does  not  deny.  He  admits, 
and  often  urges  the  necessity  of  the  office  for  the  extension 


62  I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  5.  6.  7. 

and  edification  of  the  church,  Eph.  4,  11-16.  The  people, 
therefore,  are  bound  to  regard  the  ministry  as  a  divine  insti 
tution,  and  to  value  its  services ;  but  preachers  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  party  leaders,  or  as  lords  over  God's  heritage. 

Even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man  ;  literally,  to  each 
one,  i.  e.  to  each  minister.  They  are  all  servants,  and  each 
has  his  appointed  work  to  perform,  Rom.  12,  3.  The  Lora 
here  probably  refers  to  God,  though  elsewhere  the  appoint 
ment  of  ministers  and  the  distribution  of  their  various  gifts 
are  referred  to  Christ.  Here,  however,  vs.  9.  10,  the  refer 
ence  is  to  God.  In  scripture  the  same  act  is  sometimes  refer 
red  to  one,  and  sometimes  to  another  of  the  persons  in  the 
Trinity,  because  they  are  one  God. 

6.  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered  :  but  God  gave 
the  increase. 

This  illustrates  two  points ;  first,  the  diversity  of  service 
on  the  part  of  ministers,  spoken  of  in  v.  5,  one  plants  and 
another  waters ;  and  secondly,  the  entirely  subordinate  and 
instrumental  character  of  their  service.  As  in  nature,  plant 
ing  and  watering  are  not  the  efficient  causes  of  vegetation  ;  so 
in  the  church,  ministerial  acts  are  not  the  efficient  causes  of 
grace.  In  both  cases  all  the  efficiency  is  of  God.  And  as  in 
nature,  planting  and  watering  by  human  instrumentality,  are 
not  the  necessary  conditions  of  vegetation,  so  neither  are  min 
isterial  acts  the  necessary  conditions  of  faith.  On  the  other 
hand,  however,  as  the  work  of  the  husbandman  is  the  ordi 
nary  and  appointed  means  of  securing  a  harvest,  so  the  work 
of  the  ministry  is  the  ordinary  means  of  conversion. 

7.  So  then,  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing, 
neither  he  that  watereth  :  but  God  that  giveth  the  in 
crease. 

This  is  the  conclusion.  Ministers  are  nothing.  They  are 
the  instruments  in  the  hands  of  God.  He  only  is  to  be  looked 
up  to  as  the  source  of  truth,  of  strength,  or  of  success.  To 
him  is  to  be  referred  all  the  good  ministers  may  be  the  instru 
ments  of  effecting.  If  this  be  so,  if  ministers  are  thus  ineffi 
cient,  why  should  any  one  say,  I  am  of  Paul  ?  as  though  Paul 
would  save  him ;  or,  as  though  a  mere  instrument  could  for 
give  sin  or  impart  grace. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  8.9.  53 

8.  Now  lie  that  planteth  and  he  that  watereth  are 
one  :  and  every  man  shall  receive  his  own  reward,  ac 
cording  to  his  own  labour. 

Are  one.  Ministers  have  the  same  office  ;  they  have  the 
same  work,  they  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  God  and  to  his 
Church.  They  are  fellow-labourers.  To  array  the  one  against 
the  other,  is,  therefore,  inconsistent  with  their  relation  to  each 
other  and  to  the  people  whom  they  serve. 

^  Every  man  shall  receive  his  own  reward.  Diversity  and 
unity  is  the  law  of  all  God's  works.  Ministers  are  one,  yet 
they  have  different  gifts,  different  services  to  perform.  One 
plants  and  another  waters,  and  they  have  different  rewards. 

According  to  Ids  own  labour.  The  rule  of  reward  is  not 
the  talents  or  gifts,  nor  the  success  of  ministers,  but  their 
labours.  This  brings  the  humblest  on  a  level  with  the  most 
exalted  ;  the  least  successful  with  the  most  highly  favoured. 
The  faithful,  laborious  minister  or  missionary  who  labours  in 
obscurity  and  without  apparent  fruit,  will  meet  a  reward  far 
beyond  that  of  those  who,  with  less  self-denial  and  effort,  are 
made  the  instruments  of  great  results.  Corinth  was  the  field 
of  labour  of  a  multitude  of  teachers,  some  faithful,  and  some 
unfaithful ;  some  laborious,  and  others  indolent  and  self-indul 
gent.  Each  would  have  to  answer  for  himself,  and  would  re 
ceive  a  reward  proportioned  to  his  fidelity  and  self-denial. 

9.  For  we  are  labourers  together  with  God  :  ye  are 
God's  husbandry,  (ye  are)  God's  building. 

For  we  are  labourers  together  with  God.  This  is  at  once 
the  reason  why  ministers  are  one,  and  why  they  are  to  be  re 
warded  according  to  their  labours.  They  are  one  because 
they  are  all  co-workers  with  God  in  the  same  great  enter 
prise  ;  and  they  are  to  be  rewarded  according  to  their  labour, 
because  that  is  the  rule  according  to  which  labourers  are  re 
warded.  The  propriety  of  this  representation  is  apparent, 
because  the  church  is  God's  husbandry,  or  farm,  which  he 
renders  fruitful  by  the  light  of  truth  and  the  dew  of  his  grace, 
and  on  which  his  servants  labour.  This  is  a  familiar  scriptural 
illustration,  as  the  church  is  often  called  the  vineyard  of  the 
Lord,  in  which  his  ministers  are  labourers.  A  labourer  who 
does  not  labour  is  a  contradiction ;  and  a  minister  who  is  not 
a  worker  cannot  expect  a  labourer's  reward.  Ye  are  God's 


54  I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  9.  10. 

building.  A  still  more  frequent  figure ;  as  the  church  is  so 
often  compared  to  a  temple  which  is  in  the  course  of  erection, 
and  of  which  ministers  are  the  builders,  Eph.  2,  20-22.  1  Pet. 
2,  5.  TJnipn  and  fidelity  in  labour  are  required  of  those  en 
gaged  in  tilling  the  same  farm,  or  in  the  erection  of  the  same 
building  ;  and  they  are  no  less  required  in  those  engaged  in 
cultivating  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord,  or  in  erecting  liis  tem 
ple.  The  apostle  drops  the  former,  and  carries  out  "the  latter 
figure. 

10.  According  to  the  grace  of  God  which  is  given 
unto  me,  as  a  wise  master-builder,  I  have  laid  the  foun 
dation,  and  another  buildeth  thereon.  But  let  every  man 
take  heed  how  he  buildeth  thereupon. 

According  to  the  grace  of  God  given  unto  me.  Paul  often 
spea,ks  of  his  apostolic  office  as  a  grace  or  favour  which  he  had 
received  of  God,  but  here,  as  in  15,  10,  the  reference  is  more 
general.  By  the  grace  of  God  he  means  all  the  gifts  and  in 
fluences  of  the  Spirit,  which  not  only  qualified  him  for  his 
work,  but  rendered  him  so  laborious  and  faithful.  Here,  as 
elsewhere,  he  attributes  to  God  all  he  was,  and  all  that  he  was 
enabled  to  accomplish. 

As  a  wise  master-builder.  Wise  (cro^os),  i.  e.  skilful.  The 
word  is  familiarly  used  of  artificers.  Paul  was  not  only  a  la 
bourer,  but  an  (dpxtre'Krcoi/)  architect.  To  him  was  revealed 
the  whole  plan  of  the  building,  and  he  was  inspired  to  de- 
velope  that  plan,  and  to  prescribe  the  way  in  which  it  should 
be  carried  out.  He  laid  the  foundation.  The  same  idea  as 
was  expressed  above  by  saying,  "  I  have  planted,  Apollos  wa 
tered."  He  began  the  work  in  Corinth.  Those  who  came 
after  him  were  to  carry  on  the  edifice  which  he  had  com 
menced.  The  building  must  be  erected  upon  the  foundation 
and  according  to  it.  And,  therefore,  he  adds,  Let  every  man 
(i.  e.  every  builder)  take  heed  how  he  buildeth  thereupon.  In 
the  whole  context  he  is  speaking  of  ministers,  and  therefore 
this  clause  must  be  considered  as  a  warning  addressed  to  them. 
They  are  to  take  heed  how,  i.  e.  with  what  materials,  they 
carried  on  the  building  of  this  holy  temple.  Fidelity  as  well 
as  diligence  is  required  in  a  minister.  No  matter  how  labori 
ous  he  may  be,  unless  he  employs  the  proper  materials,  he  will 
lose  his  reward.  Nothing  but  truth  can  be  safely  used  in  the 
development  of  Christian  character,  or  in  building  up  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  10.11.  55 

Church.  To  mix  the  wisdom  of  men  with  the  wisdom  of  God 
in  this  work,  is,  as  the  apostle  afterwards  says,  like  using  al 
ternate  layers  of  straw  and  marble  in  the  erection  of  a  temple. 
Let  no  man  deceive  himself  in  this  matter.  He  will  prove 
himself  a  fool,  if  he  attempts  to  substitute  philosophy  for  the 
gospel  in  the  work  of  saving  men. 

11.  For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that 
is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ. 

For,  others  can  only  carry  on  the  work  already  begun,  for 
the  foundation  cannot  be  changed.  The  foundation  of  the 
church  is  Christ.  Is.  28,  16.  Acts  4,  11.  Eph.  2,  20.  1  Pet.  2, 
6.  This  may  be  understood  either  of  the  person  or  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ.  In  either  way  the  sense  is  good.  Christ, 
as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  according  to  one  scriptural  figure, 
is  the  head  of  the  church  which  is  his  body,  that  is,  he  is  the 
source  of  its  life  ;  according  to  another  figure,  he  is  its  founda 
tion  or  corner-stone,  because  on  him  all  the  members  of  the 
church,  considered  as  a  temple,  rest  for  salvation.  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  it  is  also  true  that  the  doctrine  concern 
ing  Christ,  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  We 
may,  therefore,  understand  the  apostle  to  say,  that  the  work 
of  the  ministry  is  to  build  up  the  church  on  the  foundation 
which  God  has  laid  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ.^  There 
can  be  no  other  ground  of  confidence  for  the  justification, 
sanctification,  and  salvation  of  men.  Or  we  may  understand 
him  to  say,  that  the  work  of  those  who  followed  him  in  Co 
rinth  was  simply  to  build  on  the  foundation  which  he  had  laid, 
in  preaching  the  doctrine  of  Christ  and  him  crucified,  for  there 
can  be  no  other  foundation  of  the  church  than  that  doctrine. 
The  former  interpretation,  which  is  adopted  by  many  distin 
guished  commentators,  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  com 
mon  representations  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  God  having 
constituted  Christ  the  corner-stone  of  the  church.  It  is  also 
perhaps  more  in  accordance  with  the  form  of  expression  here 
used.  Jesus  Christ  himself  is  the  foundation,  which  was  al 
ready  laid.  The  second  interpretation,  however,  is  certainly 
more  consistent  with  the  context.  In  v.  10  Paul  says,  he  had 
laid  the  foundation.  This  can  only  mean  that  he  had  in 
Corinth  taught  the  doctrine  concerning  the  person  and  work 
of  Christ.  This  is  the  only  sense  in  which  he  can  be  said  to 
have  laid  that  foundation  which  is  Jesus  Christ.  Besides,  the 


56  I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  11.  12.  13. 

whole  passage  has  reference  to  doctrine.  Paul  had  preached 
the  truth ;  those  who  came  after  him  must  take  heed  what 
they  preached. 

12. 13.  Now,  if  any  man  build  upon  this  foundation 
gold,  silver,  precious  stones,  wood,  hay,  stubble ;  every 
man's  work  shall  be  made  manifest :  for  the  day  shall 
declare  it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed  by  fire  ;  and  the 
fire  shall  try  every  man's  work,  of  what  sort  it  is. 

In  consistency  with  the  context,  gold,  silver  and  precious 
stones,  can  only  mean  truth ;  and  wood,  hay  and  stubble, 
error.  If  by  the  foundation  which  Paul  had  laid  were  intend 
cd  the  first  converts  in  Corinth,  then  the  above  terms  would 
naturally  be  understood  of  good  and  bad  members  of  the 
church.  The  sense  would  then  be,  4 1  laid  the  foundation  of 
the  church  in  Corinth  by  receiving  true  believers  to  its  com 
munion  ;  let  others  take  heed  with  what  kind  of  members  they 
build  up  the  church.'  But  as  the  foundation  which  Paul  laid 
is  expressly  declared  to  be  Jesus  Christ,  or  the  truth  concern 
ing  his  person  and  work,  the  words  above  mentioned  must 
refer  to  true  and  false  doctrines.  '  I  have  laid  the  foundation 
of  Christ  crucified  ;  do  you  take  heed  with  what  kind  of  doc 
trine  you  carry  on  the  work.'  Besides,  the  whole  discussion 
has  reference  to  preachers  and  their  duties.  Precious  stones 
here  mean  stones  valuable  for  building,  such  as  granite  and 
marble.  Gold  and  silver  were  extensively  employed  in  adorn 
ing  ancient  temples,  and  are  therefore  appropriately  used  as 
the  symbols  of  pure  doctrine.  Wood,  hay,  and  stubble  are 
the  perishable  materials  out  of  which  ordinary  houses  were 
built,  but  not  temples.  Wood  for  the  doors  and  posts ;  hay, 
(xopros,)  dried  grass  mixed  with  mud  for  the  walls ;  and  straw, 
(/caAa/x^,)  for  the  roof.  These  materials,  unsuitable  for  the  tem- 
dle  of  God,  are  appropriate  symbols  of  false  doctrines. 

Every  man's  work  shall  be  made  (or,  become)  manifest. 
In  this  life  it  may  be  disputed  whether  a  man's  doctrines  are 
true  or  false.  He  may  have  great  confidence  in  their  truth, 
and  set  himself  above  his  brethren  and  even  above  the  Bible. 
But  his  work  hereafter  will  appear  in  its  true  character.  JFot 
the  day  shall  declare  it.  The  day  does  not  mean  indefinitely 
time,  'Time  shall  declare  it;'  nor  the  day  of  tribulation ;  nor 
the  day  of  light  and  knowledge  as  distinguished  from  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  13.  H.  15.  5? 

present  ignorance  ;  but  the  great  day,  the  day  of  judgment, 
or,  as  it  is  so  often  called,  the  day  of  the  Lord.  That  day  shall 
make  manifest  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  doctrines  taught, 
because  it  is  (i.  e.  is  certainly  to  be)  revealed  by  fire  /  literally, 
in  or  with  fire  (tvirupi}.  In  2  Thess.  1,  8,  it  is  said,  "The 
Lord  Jesus  shall  be  revealed  in  flaming  fire,"  i.  e.  in  the  midst 
of  flaming  fire.  Fire  is  the  constant  symbol  of  trial  and  judg 
ment.  The  meaning  therefore  is,  that  the  day  of  the  Lord 
will  be  a  day  of  severe  trial.  Every  work  will  then  be  sub 
jected  to  a  test  which  nothing  impure  can  stand.  The  con 
text  shows  that  the  word  day,  and  not  work,  is  the  nominative 
to  revealed.  '  The  day  of  judgment  shall  declare  every  man's 
work,  because  that  day  shall  be  revealed  with  fire.' 

And  the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is. 
The  figure  is  that  of  a  building  on  which  many  workmen  are 
engaged.  Some  use  proper  materials,  others  wood,  hay  and 
stubble.  The  building  is  to  be  subjected  to  the  test  of  fire. 
The  wood,  hay  and  stubble  will  be  burnt  up  ;  only  the  solid 
materials  will  stand.  False  doctrine  can  no  more  stand  the 
test  of  the  day  of  judgment,  than  hay  or  stubble  can  stand  a 
raging  conflagration. 

14.  15.  If  any  man's  work  abide  which  he  hath 
built  thereupon,  he  shall  receive  a  reward.  If  any 
man's  work  shall  be  burned,  he  shah1  suffer  loss  :  but 
he  himself  shah1  be  saved ;  yet  so  as  by  fire. 

This  is  an  amplification  of  what  precedes.  If  the  materials 
employed  by  a  spiritual  builder  stand  the  test  of  the  day  of 
judgment,  he  shall  receive  the  reward  of  a  faithful  servant. 
Which  he  hath  built  thereupon,  i.  e.  upon  the  foundation. 
Comp.  v.  12.  If  any  marts  worJc  shall  be  burned  (/caTa/ca^cre- 
Tttt  for  Kara/cca^o-erai)  ;  that  is,  if  the  materials  used  by  any 
builder  shall  not  stand  the  test  of  that  day,  he  shall  suffer  loss 
((nj/uo^o-erai,  see  2  Cor.  7,  9.  Phil.  3,  8).  That  is,  he  will  lose 
his  reward. 

^  'But  he  himself  shall  be  saved.  Just  as  a  man  who  has 
built  his  house  of  combustible  materials,  though  he  may  escape 
when  the  fire  comes,  his  property  is  lost,  and  all  his  labour 
comes  to  nothing.  The  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  those 
teachers  who,  although  they  retain  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  the  gospel,  yet  combine  them  with  error.  This  is  plain 
from  v.  12,  "  If  any  man  shall  build  on  this  foundation."  It  is 


58  I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  15.16. 

not  enough,  therefore,  that  a  minister  hold  fast  to  fundamental 
truth ;  he  must  take  heed  what  he  teaches  in  connection  with 
that  truth.  If  he  mingles  with  it  the  wood,  hay  and  stubblo 
of  his  own  philosophy,  he  will  find  himself  a  loser  on  the  day 
of  judgment.  Many  of  the  Fathers  understand  o-co^ryo-erai  here 
in  the  sense  of  shall  be  preserved.  His  work  shall  be  consumed, 
but  he  himself  shall  be  kept  alive  in  the  midst  of  the  fire.  It 
is  not  then  the  salvation,  but  the  final  perdition  of  the  false 
teacher  that  the  passage  teaches.  This,  however,  is  contrary 
to  the  uniform  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  common  interpretation  is  therefore  to  be  preferred. 

Yet  so  as  by  fire,  i.  e.  with  difficulty.  Comp.  1  Pet.  3,  20. 
Jude  23.  Zech.  3,  2.  He  will  just  escape  with*  his  life,  as  a 
man  is  rescued  from  a  burning  building.  His  salvation  will 
not  only  be  effected  with  difficulty,  but  it  will  be  attended 
with  great  loss.  He  will  occupy  a  lower  place  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  than  he  would  have  done.  Romanists  found  their 
doctrine  of  purgatory  on  tradition  rather  than  on  Scripture. 
They  are  glad,  however,  to  avail  themselves  of  any  semblance 
of  scriptural  support,  and  therefore  appeal  to  this  passage  to 
prove  that  men  are  saved  through  fire.  But,  1.  Paul  is  here 
speaking  of  ministers  and  of  their  doctrines,  and  not  of  be 
lievers  in  general.  2.  The  fire  of  which  he  speaks  is  not  a 
state  of  trial  preceding  the  judgment,  but  the  judgment  itself. 
3.  The  fire  is  that  in  the  midst  of  which  Jesus  Christ  is  to  ap 
pear.  4.  Paul  does  not  say,  the  man  is  to  be  saved  by  being 
purified  by  fire,  but  simply  '  with  difficulty,'  as  the  expression 
"  so  as  by  fire  "  familiarly  means. 

16.  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God, 
and  (that)  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  ? 

The  apostle  justifies  the  representation  given  above  of  the 
responsibility  of  ministers.  The  unfaithful  builders  deserve 
to  be  thus  punished,  because  they  are  engaged  in  the  erection 
of  no  ordinary  building.  They  are  not  raising  up  a  house  for 
themselves,  to  be  constructed  of  what  materials  and  on  what 
ever  plan  may  suit  their  taste.  They  are  building  the  temple 
of  God.  This  truth  the  Corinthians  seem  to  have  forgotten,  for 
they  regarded  their  teachers  as  men  allowed  to  preach  their  own 
speculations,  and  valued  them  according  to  their  proficiency 
in  "  the  wisdom  of  words."  He,  therefore,  asks  them,  "  Know 
ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God  ?  "  See  G,  19.  2  Cor.  6, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  16.  17.  18.  59 

16.  Eph.  2,  21.  A  temple  is  a  house  in  which  God  dwells; 
and  therefore,  it  is  added,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth 
in  you.  This  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  constitutes  each  be 
liever,  every  separate  church,  and  the  Church  collectively  the 
temple  of  God.  As  in  the  Jewish  temple,  in  its  inmost  recess, 
the  Shechinah,  or  glory  of  God,  was  constantly  present,  and 
conferred  on  the  building  its  awe-inspiring  power,  and  ren 
dered  any  profanation  of  it  a  direct  offence  to  God  ;  so  docs 
the  Holy  Spirit  dwell  in  the  Church,  the  profanation  of  which 
by  false  doctrine  is  therefore  sacrilege. 

17.  If  any  man  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall 
God  destroy :  for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  which 
(temple)  ye  are. 

The  word  translated  defile  in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse, 
is  the  same  as  that  rendered  destroy  in  the  second  clause.  It 
(<££apo))  has  the  general  meaning  to  bring  into  a  worse  state. 
In  the  LXX.  as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament  it  means  to  mar. 
The  passage  may,  therefore,  be  rendered,  '  If  any  man  injure 
the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  injure.'  The  temple  cannot 
be  injured  with  impunity.  Under  the  old  dispensation  the 
penalty  for  defiling  the  sanctuary  was  either  death,  Lev.  15, 
31,  or  excision  from  the  people,  Num.  19,  20.  God  is  not  less 
jealous  of  his  spiritual  temple,  than  he  was  of  the  typical  tem 
ple,  built  of  wood  and  stone  by  the  hands  of  men.  Ministers 
injure  the  souls  of  men  and  injure  the  church  when  they 
preach  false  doctrine,  and  therefore  they  defile  the  temple  of 
God,  and  will  certainly  be  punished. 

For  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  i.  e.  sacred ;  something 
which  cannot  be  violated  with  impunity.  In  this  sense  every 
thing  consecrated  to  God  is  holy,  and  especially  any  place  or 
person  in  which  he  dwells.  Which  (temple)  ye  are.  As  the 
word  for  temple  is  not  in  the  text  (which  reads  o?iWs  ecn-e 
y/ms)  the  reference  may  be  to  the  word  holy.  '  The  temple 
is  holy,  which  ye  also  are.'  The  same  reason  exists  why  the 
church  cannot  be  defiled  or  injured,  that  there  is  that  the 
temple  could  not  be^profaned.  Both  are  sacred.  The  view 
given  in  our  version  is  commonly  preferred. 

18.  Let  no  man  deceive   himself.      If  any  man 


60 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  18.19.20. 


among  you  seemetli  to  be  wise  in  this  world,  let  him 
become  a  fool,  that  he  may  be  wise. 

Let  no  man  deceive  himself.  <  Let  no  man  doubt  the  truth 
of  what  I  have  said  of  the  worthlessness  of  human  wisdom, 
and  of  the  danger  of  substituting  it  for  the  wisdom  of  God. 
If  he  does,  he  will  find  himself  mistaken.' 

If  any  man  among  you  seemeth  to  be  wise,  (So/ca  cro<£os 
etmt),  thinks  himself  to  be  wise.  In  this  world  may  be  con 
nected  with  the  word  wise,  'wise  with  the  wisdom  of  this 
world.'  Or,  it  may  be  connected  with  the  whole  preceding 
clause.  l  If  any  imagines  he  is  wise  among  you,  in  this  world.' 
The  former  explanation  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  whole 
context.  "  Wise  in  this  world  "  is  equivalent  to  "  wise  after 
the  flesh,"  1,  2G. 

Let  him  become  a  fool,  that  he  may  be  (or,  become)  wise. 
Let  him  renounce  his  own  wisdom  in  order  that  he  may  re 
ceive  the  wisdom  of  God.  We  must  be  empty  in  order  to  be 
filled.  We  must  renounce  our  own  righteousness,  in  order  to 
be  clothed  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  We  must  renounce 
our  own  strength,  in  order  to  be  made  strong.  We  must  re 
nounce  our  own  wisdom,  in  order  to  be  truly  wise.  This  is 
a  universal  law.  And  it  is  perfectly  reasonable.  We  are 
only  required  to  recognize  that  to  be  true,  which  is  true. 
We  would  not  be  required  to  renounce  our  own  righteous 
ness,  strength,  or  wisdom,  if  they  were  really  what  they  as 
sume  to  be.  It  is  simply  because  they  are  in  fact  worthless, 
that  we  are  called  upon  so  to  regard  them. 

19.  20.  For  the  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness 
with  God.  For  it  is  written,  He  taketh  the  wise  in  their 
own  craftiness.  And  again,  The  Lord  knoweth  the 
thoughts  of  the  wise,  that  they  are  vain. 

We  must  renounce  our  own  wisdom  because  it  is  folly. 
The  infinite  mind  sees  that  to  be  folly  which  we  children  think 
to  be  wisdom.  There  are  two  senses  in  which  this  is  true,  or 
in  which  wisdom  may  be  said  to  be  folly.  Even  truth  or  true 
knowledge  becomes  folly,  if  employed  to  accomplish  an  end 
for  which  it  is  not  adapted.  If  a  man  attempts  to  make  men 
holy  or  happy ;  if  he  undertakes  to  convert  the  world,  by 
mathematics,  or  metaphysics,  or  moral  philosophy,  he  is  foolish, 
and  his  wisdom,  as  a  means  to  that  end,  is  folly.  He  must 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  20.21.  61 

renounce  all  dependence  on  those  means  if  he  would  accom 
plish  that  end.  But  in  the  second  place,  much  that  passes  for 
wisdom  among  men  is  in  itself,  and  not  merely  as  a  means  to 
an  end,  foolishness.  Both  these  ideas  are  evidently  compre 
hended  in  the  apostle's  statement.  He  means  to  say  that  hu 
man  knowledge  is  entirely  inadequate  to  save  men ;  because 
that  end  can  only  be  accomplished  by  the  gospel.  And  he 
means  also  to  brand  as  folly  the  speculations  of  men  about 
"  the  deep  things  of  God." 

In  proof  of  the  assertion  that  the  wisdom  of  men  is  fool 
ishness  with  God,  he  quotes  two  passages  of  Scripture.  The 
first  is  from  Job  5,  13,  the  second  is  from  Ps.  94,  11.  The  for 
mer  is  a  fragment  of  a  sentence  containing  in  the  Greek  no 
verb.  Our  translation  renders  the  participle  (6  Spao-o-o/xevos) 
as  though  it  were  a  verb.  Those  passages  clearly  express  the 
same  sentiment  which  the  apostle  had  uttered.  They  declare 
the  impotency  and  insufficiency  of  human  wisdom. 

21.  Therefore  let  no  one  glory  in  men  :  for  all 
tilings  are  yours. 

To  glory  in  any  person  or  thing  is  to  trust  in  him  or  it  as  the 
ground  of  confidence,  or  as  the  source  of  honour  or  blessed 
ness.  It  is  to  regard  ourselves  as  blessed  because  of  our  rela 
tion  to  it.  Thus  men  are  said  to  glory  in  the  Lord,  or  in  the 
cross ;  because  God,  or  Christ  as  crucified,  is  regarded  as  the 
ground  of  confidence  and  the  source  of  blessedness.  Others  are 
said  to  glory  in  the  flesh,  in  the  law,  or  even  in  themselves 
The  apostle  having  shown  that  ministers  are  mere  servants, 
nothing  in  themselves,  and  that  the  wisdom  of  the  world  is 
foolishness  with  God,  draws  from  these  premises  the  inference 
that  they  are  not  the  ground  of  the  believer's  confidence. 
The  Corinthians  did  glory  in  men,  when  they  said,  I  am  of 
Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas.  They  forgot  their  own 
dignity  when  they  regarded  as  masters  those  who  were  their 
servants. 

For  all  things  are  yoiirs.  The  amplification  of  these  words, 
given  in  the  next  verse,  shows  that  they  are  to  be  taken  in 
their  widest  sense.  The  universe  is  yours.  How  unworthy 
then  is  it,  that  you  should  glory  in  men.  Paul  often  appeals 
to  the  dignity  and  destiny  of  the  church  as  a  motive  to  right 
action.  "  Know  ye  not  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  world  ?  " 
6,  2.  There  are  two  senses  in  which  the  declaration,  "  Al] 


02  I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  21.  22.  23. 

things  are  yours,"  may  be  understood.  It  means  that  all 
things  are  designed  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  church. 
The  consummation  of  the  work  of  redemption  is  the  great  end 
to  which  all  things  are  directed,  and  to  which  they  are  to  be 
made  subservient.  And  secondly,  the  church  is  the  heir  of 
the  world,  Rom.  4,  13.  All  things  are  given  to  Christ  as  the 
head  of  the  chur  h,  and  to  the  church  in  him.  For  his  people 
are  to  reign  with  him,  Rom.  8, 17,  and  the  glory  which  the 
Father  gave  him,  he  gives  them,  John  17,  22.  The  church, 
which  is  to  be  thus  exalted,  is  not  any  external  society  with 
its  hierarchy,  nor  is  it  the  body  of  poor,  imperfect  believers  as 
they  now  are,  who  for  their  own  good  are  despised  and  down 
trodden.  But  it  is  the  consummated  church  to  be  formed  out 
of  materials  now  so  unpromising.  The  people  of  God,  how 
ever,  should  not  be  unmindful  of  their  high  destiny,  nor  act 
unworthily  of  it. 

22.  Whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas,  or  the 
world,  or  life,  or  death,  or  things  present,  or  things  to 
come  ;  all  are  yours ; 

This  is  the  amplification  of  the  preceding  verse.  In  the 
"  all  things  "  there  mentioned  are  included,  1.  The  ministry, 
which  belongs  to  the  church  and  is  designed  for  its  edification. 
The  church  does  not  belong  to  the  ministry,  as  a  kingdom 
belongs  to  a  king,  but  the  reverse.  2.  The  world  (/coV/xos)  in 
its  widest  sense.  The  present  order  of  things  is  maintained 
and  directed  to  the  promotion  of  the  great  work  of  redemp 
tion.  3.  Life  and  death.  This  means  not  merely  that  the 
question  whether  the  people  of  God  live  or  die,  is  determined 
with  reference  to  their  own  good ;  but  also  that  life  and  death 
are  dispensed  and  administered  so  as  best  to  fulfil  the  designs 
of  God  in  reference  to  the  church.  The  greatest  men  of  the 
world,  kings,  statesmen  and  heroes,  ministers,  individual  be 
lievers  and  unbelievers,  live  or  die  just  as  best  subserves  the 
interests  of  Christ's  kingdom.  4.  Things  present  and  things 
to  come,  i.  e.  the  present  and  the  future.  It  is  no  temporary 
subjection  of  all  things  to  the  church  which  is  intended.  The 
plan  of  God  contemplates  the  permanent  exaltation  of  the 
redeemed. 

23.  And  ye  are  Christ's  :  and  Christ  (is)  God's. 
As  all  things  are  subject  to  the  church  and  belong  to  it, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  3,  23.  63 

the  church  itself  can  be  subject  and  belong  to  none  but  Christ. 
In  him,  therefore,  only  can  it  glory. 

Christ  is  God's.  As  the  church  is  subject  only  to  Christ, 
so  Christ  is  subject  only  to  God.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  a 
threefold  subordination  of  Christ.  1.  A  subordination  as  to 
the  mode  of  subsistence  and  operation,  of  the  second,  to  the 
first  person  in  the  Trinity ;  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
their  identity  of  substance,  and  equality  in  power  and  glory. 
2.  The  voluntary  subordination  of  the  Son  in  his  humbling 
himself  to  be  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  and  becoming  obedi 
ent  unto  death,  and  therefore  subject  to  the  limitations  and 
infirmities  of  our  nature.  3.  The  economical  or  official  sub 
jection  of  the  theanthropos.  That  is,  the  subordination  of 
the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  in  the  work  of  redemption  and  as 
the  head  of  the  church.  He  that  is  by  nature  equal  with  God 
becomes,  as  it  were,  officially  subject  to  him.  The  passages 
the  most  directly  parallel  with  the  one  before  us  are  11,  3,  and 
15,  28,  but  in  Phil.  2,  6-11.  Heb.  1,  3,  and  in  many  other  pas 
sages,  the  same  truth  is  taught. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Deduction  from  the  preceding  discussion,  teaching  the  proper  light  in  which 
the  people  should  regard  the  ministry,  vs.  1-6.  Contrast  between  the 
apostles  and  the  false  teachers,  vs.  6-21. 

ministers,  as  stewards,  should  be  faithful,  as  Paul  had 
proved  himself  to  be,  vs.  1-21. 

IT  follows,  from  what  was  said  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that 
the  people  should  regard  their  ministers  as  the  servants  of 
Christ,  and  dispensers  of  the  truths  which  God  had  revealed, 
v.  1.  The  most  important  qualification  of  a  dispenser  is  fidel 
ity,  v.  2.  It  is  a  small  matter  how  men  may  estimate  the 
fidelity  of  ministers.  The  only  competent  judge  is  the  Lord  ; 
and,  therefore,  to  his  judgment  the  decision  of  that  question 
should  be  referred,  vs.  3-6. 

What  the  apostle  had  said  of  himself  and  of  Apollos,  in 
the  foregoing  exhibition  of  the  true  nature  of  the  ministerial 


64  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  1. 

office,  was  intended  to  apply  to  all  ministers,  that  the  people 
should  not  estimate  them  unduly,  and  that  all  emulous  con 
tentions  might  be  avoided,  vs.  6,  7.  The  false  teachers  in 
Corinth,  and  the  people  under  their  influence,  considered 
themselves  to  be  in  a  high  state  of  religious  prosperity,  and 
were  disposed  to  self-indulgence,  v.  8.  The  apostles  were  in 
a  very  different  condition,  at  least  as  to  their  external  circum 
stances.  They  were  despised,  afflicted,  and  persecuted ;  while 
their  adversaries  were  honoured,  prosperous,  and  caressed, 
vs.  9-13.  Paul  presented  this  contrast  not  to  mortify,  but  to 
admonish  his  readers,  v.  14.  He,  if  any  one,  had  a  right  to 
admonish  them,  for  he  was  their  spiritual  father,  v.  15.  They 
should  therefore  imitate  him ;  and,  to  that  end,  he  had  sent 
Timothy  to  remind  them  of  his  instructions  and  example, 
vs.  16.  IV.  He  himself  intended  soon  to  visit  Corinth;  and  it 
depended  on  them  whether  he  should  come  with  a  rod,  or  in 
the  spirit  of  meekness,  vs.  18-21. 

1.  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  as  of  the  ministers 
of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God. 

This  is  the  conclusion  or  deduction  from  the  preceding 
discussion.  Ministers  are  the  servants  of  Christ,  and  stewards 
of  God.  Let  a  man,  i.  e.  every  one.  Account  of  us,  (Aoyt- 
£eV$a>)  let  him  think  of  us,  or  regard  us  as  being.  The  min* 
isters  of  Christ.  Literally  the  word  (wnjpenys)  means  an 
under-rower,  or  common  sailor  ;  and  then,  subordinate  servant 
of  any  kind.  It  is  generally  and  properly  used  of  menials,  or 
of  those  of  the  lower  class  of  servants.  This  is  not  always  the 
case,  but  here  the  idea  of  entire  subjection  is  to  be  retained. 
Ministers  are  the  mere  servants  of  Christ;  they  have  no 
authority  of  their  own ;  their  whole  business  is  to  do  what 
they  are  commanded. 

And  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  Stewards  (ot/covo- 
fjioi)  were  generally  slaves  appointed  as  managers  or  overseers. 
It  was  their  business  to  direct  the  affairs  of  the  household, 
and  dispense  the  provisions.  It  is  as  dispensers  ministers  are 
here  called  stewards.  They  are  to  dispense  the  mysteries  of 
God,  that  is,  the  truths  which  God  had  revealed,  and  which, 
as  being  undiscoverable  by  human  reason,  are  called  mysteries, 
into  the  knowledge  of  which  men  must  be  initiated.  Myste~ 
ries  here  do  not  mean  the  sacraments.  The  word  is  never  used 
in  reference  to  either  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  New 


I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  1.2.  65 

Testament.  And  such  a  reference  in  this  case  is  forbidden  by 
the  whole  context.  In  the  second  chapter,  the  mystery  which 
Paul  speaks  of  is  declared  to  be  the  gospel  considered  as  a 
revelation  of  God.  In  the  Romish  church,  the  principal  func 
tion  of  ministers  is  to  dispense  the  sacraments  to  which  they 
are  assumed  to  have  the  power,  in  virtue  of  the  grace  of 
orders,  to  give  supernatural  power.  In  the  apostolic  church 
they  were  regarded  as  the  dispensers  of  the  truth.  This  verse, 
therefore,  contains  two  important  truths :  Ministers  have  no 
arbitrary  or  discretionary  authority  in  the  church.  Neither 
have  they  any  supernatural  power,  such  as  is  attributed  to 
them  in  the  Romish  church.  Their  authority  is  merely  minis 
terial,  limited  by  the  commands  of  Christ,  and,  therefore,  to 
be  judged  by  the  standard  of  those  commands,  which  are 
known  to  the  whole  church.  And  secondly,  they  are  not,  like 
Aristotle  or  Plato,  the  originators  of  their  own  doctrines,  or 
the  teachers  of  the  doctrines  of  other  men,  but  simply  the  dis 
pensers  of  the  truths  which  God  has  revealed. 

2.  Moreover,  it  is  required  in  stewards,  that  a  man 
be  found  faithful. 

Moreover,  (o  Se  AOITTOV)  but  what  remains  is  ;  as  to  the  rest. 
Instead  of  the  words  just  mentioned  Lachmann  and  Tischen- 
dorf  adopt  the  reading  wSe,  here,  i.  e.  in  the  earth,  or,  in  this 
matter.  The  most  ancient  MSS.  are  in  favour  of  this  reading, 
and  the  sense  is  good.  The  great  requisite  for  the  discharge 
of  the  office  of  a  steward  is  fidelity.  As  he  is  a  servant  he  must 
be  faithful  to  his  master ;  as  he  is  a  dispenser,  he  must  be 
faithful  to  those  subject  to  his  oversight.  He  must  not  neglect 
to  dispense  to  them  their  food ;  neither  may  he  adulterate  it, 
or  substitute  any  thing  in  the  place  of  that  which  is  given 
them  to  distribute.  The  application  of  this  to  the  case  of 
ministers  is  plain.  The  great  thing  required  of  them  is  fidel 
ity.  Fidelity  to  Christ  as  servants ;  not  arrogating  to  them 
selves  any  other  than  ministerial  power,  or  venturing  to  go 
beyond  his  commands.  Fidelity  also  to  the  people,  not  fail 
ing  to  dispense  to  them  the  truths  which  God  has  revealed,  nor 
mixing  those  truths  with  their  own  speculations,  much  less 
substituting  for  those  doctrines  human  knowledge  or  wisdom. 

3.  But  with  me  it  is  a  very  small  thing  that  I 


66  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  3.4. 

should  be  judged  of  you,  or  of  roan's  judgment :  yea,  1 
judge  not  mine  own  self. 

Fidelity  to  duty  supposes  responsibility  to  some  one.  As 
ministers  are  required  to  be  faithful,  who  is  to  judge  of  their 
fidelity  ?  Paul  says,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  it  was  not 
the  Corinthians,  not  the  world,  not  himself — but,  as  he  adds  in 
the  next  verse,  the  Lord. 

JBut  with  me,  (e/xol  Se) ;  to  me,  i.  e.  in  my  estimation.  It 
is  a  very  small  thing  (eis  IXa^Lcrrov  «m),  it  amounts  to  nothing. 
"  That  I  should  be  judged  of  you."  This  does  not  refer  to 
the  judicial  judgment  of  the  church,  but  simply  to  the  opin 
ions  which  the  Corinthians  entertained  of  Paul.  It  mattered 
little  to  him  whether  they  thought  him  faithful  or  unfaithful. 
His  responsibility  was  not  to  them.  They  had  not  sent  him  ; 
they  had  not  told  him  what  doctrines  to  preach.  He  was  not 
their  steward,  but  the  steward  of  God.  Or  of  man's  judg 
ment  (VTTO  av^pcoTrtV^s  r)/jL€pa<s)  literally,  by  human  day.  As  4  the 
day  of  the  Lord'  means  the  day  of  God's  judgment,  so  '  the 
day  of  men'  means  the  day  of  man's  judgment.  The  sense  is 
obvious,  though  the  expression  no  where  else  occurs.  The 
apostle,  although  denying  his  responsibility  to  the  Corinthians, 
or  to  any  human  tribunal  for  his  fidelity  as  a  minister  of 
Christ,  does  not  mean  to  assert  that  he  was  his  own  judge. 
He  therefore  adds,  "I  judge  not  my  own  self."  Many  men 
think  themselves  faithful,  who  are  most  unfaithful.  It  is  not 
enough  that  our  own  conscience  does  not  condemn  us.  Con 
science  is  a  partial,  and  often  an  unenlightened  judge.  We 
may  justify  ourselves,  and  be  at  last  condemned  by  God.  But, 
if  our  heart  condemn  us,  how  can  we  stand  before  him  who 
knows  all  things  ? 

4.  For  I  know  nothing  by  myself;  yet  am  I  not 
hereby  justified :  but  he  that  judgeth  me  is  the  Lord. 

For  I  know  nothing  by  myself,  (ov>8ev  yap  e/xavrw  criWSa) 
I  am  conscious  of  nothing.  That  is,  my  conscience  does  not 
accuse  me  of  any  thing.  Paul  is  speaking  of  his  fidelity  as  a 
steward.  He  says,  he  was  not  his  own  judge,  for  though  his 
conscience  did  not  accuse  him  of  want  of  ministerial  fidelity, 
that  did  not  justify  him.  I  am  not  thereby  justified.  That  is, 
I  am  not  thereby  acquitted.  My  judgment  of  myself  is  not 
final.  The  only  impartial,  competent,  and  final  judge  is  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  4.5.  67 

Lord.    This  interpretation  of  the  verse  is  suited  to  the  mean- 
inn-  of  the  words  and  to  the  connection,  and  has  the  sanction 
of  general  approbation.     The  connection  indicated  by  for  is 
between   what   precedes   and  the   latter  part  of  the  verse, 
<I  iudo-e  not  myself,  for  he  that  judgeth  me  is  the  Lord.' 
need  hardly  be  remarked,  that  when  Paul  says,  he  was  con 
scious  of  nothing  wrong,  the  declaration  is  to  be  limited  by 
the  connection.     He  speaks  of  himself  elsewhere  as  the  chiet 
of  sinners,  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with  his  saying  _  that 
his  conscience  acquitted  him  of  failure  in  fidelity  as  a  minister. 
The  clause,  I  am  not  hereby  justified,  must  also  be  ex 
plained  in  reference  to  the  connection.     He  is  not  speaking 
of  the  doctrine  of  justification  ;  and,  therefore,  is  not  to  be 
understood  to  say,  '  My  justification  is  not  thereby  secured.' 
That  is,  he  does  not  mean  to  say  that  ministerial  fidelity  is  not 
the  oround  of  his  justification.     This  would  be  entirely  out  of 
keeping  with  the  context.     All  he  means  is,  that  the  question 
whether  he  was  faithful,  was  one  not  to  be  decided  by  his 
conscience,  but  by  the  Lord.     Lord  here  evidently  means 
Christ,  who  is  therefore  a  higher  judge  than  conscience.     As 
a  moral  agent,  as  a  believer,  and  as  a  minister,  Paul  felt  him 
self  accountable  to  Christ.     This  inward  allegiance  of  the  con 
science  is  the  highest  form  of  worship.     The  Lord  Jesus  was 
to  the  apostle  the  object  of  all  those  sentiments  and  feelings 
which  terminate  on  God.     And  he  must  be  so  to  us,  or  we  are 
not  Christians ;  because,  what  makes  a  man  a  Christian,  is  to 
feel  and  act  towards  Christ  as  God. 

5.  Therefore  judge  nothing  before  the  time,  until 
the  Lord  come,  who  both  will  bring  to  light  the  hidden 
things  of  darkness,  and  will  make  manifest  the  coun 
sels  of  the  hearts :  and  then  shall  every  man  have 
praise  of  God. 

As  the  Lord  is  the  only  judge,  we  must  wait  for  his  ap 
pearance,  and  neither  assume  his  prerogative,  nor  anticipate 
his  decision.  Judge  nothing  before  the  time  (KCH/JOS),  i.  e.  the 
appropriate,  or  appointed  time.  What  time  is  intended  is  in 
timated  in  the  next  clause.  Until  the  Lord  come,  («os  av  eA% 
shall  have  come,)  i.  e.  until  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  which 
in  the  New  Testament  is  constantly  represented  as  contempo 
raneous  with  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  general 


68  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  5. 

judgment.  He  is  to  come  for  judgment,  Matt.  24,  SO.  46. 
2  Pet.  3,  4.  12.  Jude  14.  Rev.  1,  7.  The  reason  why  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  is  the  appropriate  time  for  judgment  is, 
that  he  will  then  do  what  cannot  be  done  before,  or  by  any 
creature.  lie  will  bring  to  light  (shed  light  upon)  the  secret 
things  of  darkness  /  that  is,  things  which  are  now  hidden  in 
darkness.  This  includes  acts  which  are  now  unknown,  and 
those  principles  of  action  which  lie  concealed  in  the  recesses 
of  the  heart,  where  no  human  eye  can  reach  them.  This  is  all 
the  context  requires.  In  other  connections  the  secret  things, 
or  the  works  of  darkness,  means  wicked  works  /  works  done 
in  the  dark  to  avoid  detection ;  or  works  which  spring  from 
moral  darkness,  Eph.  5,  11.  But  the  apostle  is  here  speaking 
of  the  reason  why  judgment  should  be  deferred  until  the  com 
ing  of  Christ.  The  reason  is  that  he  alone  can  bring  to  light 
the  secret  acts  and  motives  of  men.  These  secret  works  and 
motives,  and  not  merely  outward  acts,  are  the  grounds  of 
judgment.  Whether  a  man  is  faithful  in  preaching  the  gos 
pel  depends  upon  his  motives ;  for  some  preached  Christ  of 
contention,  Phil.  1,  16.  This  view  of  the  passage  is  confirmed 
by  the  explanatory  clause  which  follows,  and  will  make  'mani 
fest  the  counsels  of  the  hearts.  The  former  expression  is  gen 
eral,  this  is  special.  The  '  counsels  of  the  heart '  are  included 
in  the  '  secret  things  of  darkness.'  He  who  sheds  light  on  the 
secret  things  of  darkness  not  only  reveals  acts  done  in  secret, 
but  makes  manifest  the  counsels  of  the  heart.  What  a  work 
is  here  ascribed  to  the  Lord  Jesus  !  He  will  bring  to  light 
the  secret  acts  and  hidden  motives  of  every  human  being. 
He  will  exercise  the  prerogative  of  judging  the  heart  and  con 
science  ;  a  prerogative  which  none  but  an  omniscient  being 
can  rightfully  claim  or  possibly  exercise.  It  is  therefore  in 
Scripture  always  spoken  of  as  peculiar  to  God,  Ps.  26,  2.  Jer. 
11,  20.  20,  12.  Rev.  2,  23.  Paul  appealed  from  the  fallible 
judgment  of  short-sighted  men,  to  the  infallible  judgment  of 
his  omniscient  Lord. 

And  then  ;  not  before,  because  not  until  then  will  the  full 
truth  be  known.  /Shall  every  man  have  praise  (eTratvo?,  much 
praise,  applause,  a  loud  and  clear  acclaim  of  commendation ; 
Well  done,  thou  good  and  faithful  servant !)  The  reason  why 
Paul  uses  the  word  praise,  and  not  the  general  term  recom 
pense,  probably  is,  that  he  is  throughout  the  passage  speaking 
of  himself.  The  Corinthians  had  sat  in  judgment  on  his  fidel 
ity.  He  tells  them  that  neither  they  nor  he  could  competently 


I.   CORINTHIANS  4,  5.6.  69 

decide  whether  he  was  faithful,  or  not.  The  Lord  was  the 
only  judge.  When  he  comes,  the  truth  will  be  known,  and 
then  there  shall  be  praise.  He  knew  there  was  laid  up  for  him 
a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord  the  righteous  judge 
would  give  him  in  that  day,  2  Tim.  4,  8.  Still,  as  what  is 
true  of  him  is  true  of  others,  he  expresses  himself  in  general 
terms.  Then  shall  every  man  have  praise.  That  is,  every 
faithful  servant.  Praise  of  God,  i.  e.  from  God.  He  is  the 
ultimate  source  of  all  good.  He  is  in  Christ ;  and  Christ  is  in 
God.  The  Theanthropos,  as  final  judge,  is  the  representative 
of  the  Godhead,  so  that  his  decisions  and  awards  are  the  deci 
sions  and  awards  of  God.  As  remarked  above,  2,  15,  what 
the  apostle  says  of  his  independence  of  human  judgment,  and 
his  command  not  to  anticipate  the  judgment  of  the  Lord,  is 
consistent  with  his  frequent  recognition  of  the  right  and  duty 
of  the  church  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  qualifications  of  her  own 
members.  He  is  here  speaking  of  the  heart.  The  church 
cannot  judge  the  heart.  Whether  a  man  is  sincere  or  in 
sincere  in  his  professions,  whether  his  experience  is  genuine 
or  spurious,  God  only  can  decide.  The  church  can  only  judge 
of  what  is  outward.  If  any  man  profess  to  be  holy,  and  yet 
is  immoral,  the  church  is  bound  to  reject  him,  as  Paul  clearly 
teaches  in  a  following  chapter.  Or  if  he  profess  to  be  a  Chris 
tian,  and  yet  rejects  Christianity,  or  any  of  its  essential  doc 
trines,  he  cannot  be  received,  Tit.  3,  10.  But  "the  counsels 
of  the  heart"  the  Searcher  of  hearts  only  can  judge. 

G.  And  these  things,  brethren,  I  have  in  a  figure 
transferred  to  myself  and  (to)  Apollos  for  your  sakes ; 
that  ye  might  learn  in  us  not  to  think  (of  men)  above 
that  which  is  written,  that  no  one  of  you  be  puffed  up 
for  one  against  another. 

These  things  refers  to  what  was  said  in  the  preceding 
chapter  of  preachers,  especially  to  what  is  said  from  3,  5,  and 
omvards.  These  things  he  had  in  a  figure  transferred  to  him 
self  and  Apollos.  That  is,  instead  of  teaching  in  an  abstract, 
general  form,  that  ministers  were  mere  servants,  he  had 
presented  the  truth  in  a  concrete  form,  saying  that  he  and 
Apollos  were  servants,  mere  instruments  in  the  hand  of  God. 
This  was  the  (/xeTao-x^arwr/xos),  the  change  of  form  which  he 
had  adopted.  He  did  this,  he  says,  that  they  might  learn  in 


TO  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  6.7. 

ws,  i.  e.  by  what  I  have  said  of  Apollos  and  myself,  not  to  think 
above  that  which  is  loritten.  That  is,  not  to  estimate  ministers 
above  the  scriptural  standard.  As  Paul  had  been  treating  of 
this  subject,  above  that  which  is  written,  might  seem  naturally 
to  refer  to  what  he  himself  had  just  written.  But  as  the 
phrase  always  elsewhere  refers  to  the  Old  Testament,  which 
were  the  writings  recognized  as  of  divine  authority,  such  is 
probably  the  reference  here.  He  does  not  appeal  to  any  one 
passage,  but  to  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures  concern 
ing  ministers  of  religion.  The  Corinthians  were  not  to  think 
of  their  ministers  more  highly  than  the  Bible  authorized  them 
to  think.  Comp.  Jer.  9,  23,  24.  The  particle  (ira),  rendered 
that,  has  its  ordinary  force,  in  order  that,  although  the  follow 
ing  verb  (^ucrtoucr^e,)  is  in  the  indicative,  a  combination  which 


occurs  nowhere  else  except  in  Gal.  4,  1  7.  The  connection  is 
with  the  preceding  clause,  '  That  ye  may  learn  to  think  cor 
rectly,  in  order  thatj  &c. 

That  no  one  be  puffed  up  for  one  against  another  •  literal 
ly,  that  ye  be  not  puffed  up  one  for  one  against  another.  This 
admits  of  two  interpretations.  It  may  mean,  '  That  ye  be  not 
inflated  one  on  account  of  one  teacher,  and  against  another.' 
The  Corinthians  were  proud  of  their  connection  one  with  one 
teacher,  and  another  with  another.  And  this  led  to  the 
strifes  and  divisions  which  existed  among  them.  Paul  taught 
them  that  ministers  were  servants,  in  order  that  they  might 
not  thus  contend  about  them.  This,  although  it  gives  a  good 
sense,  is  neither  consistent  with  the  structure  of  the  passage 
nor  with  what  follows.  The  meaning  is,  '  Be  not  puffed  up 
one  above  another,'  (els  vrrtp  TOV  ei/os),  comp.  in  the  Greek  1 
Thess.  5,  11.  The  followers  of  Apollos  exalted  themselves 
over  those  of  Paul,  and  those  of  Paul  over  those  of  Cephas. 
One  exalted  himself  above  another  and  against  him.  He  not 
only  thought  himself  better  than  his  brother,  but  assumed  a 
hostile  attitude  towards  him.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the 
next  verse,  which  is  directed  against  the  self-conceit  of  the 
Corinthians  and  not  against  their  zeal  for  their  teachers. 

7.  For  who  maketh  thee  to  differ  (from  another)? 
and  what  hast  thou  that  thou  didst  not  receive  ?  Now, 
if  thou  didst  receive  (it),  why  dost  thou  glory,  as  if 
thou  hadst  not  received  (it)  ? 

Who  maketh  thee  to  differ  ?    This  may  mean  either,  4  Who 


I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  7.8.  71 

thinks  you  are  better  than  others  ? '  Your  superiority  over 
your  brethren  is  mere  self-conceit  and  inflation.  The  differ 
ence  between  you  is  only  imaginary.  Or,  it  may  mean,  '  Who 
is  the  author  of  this  superiority  ? '  Admitting  you  to  be  as 
superior  to  others  as  you  imagine,  to  whom  are  you  indebted 
for  it  ?  According  to  the  latter  explanation  the  verse  con 
tains  but  one  argument  against  their  pride,  viz.,  that  all  distin 
guishing  advantages  are  derived  from  God.  According  to 
the  former,  there  are  two  distinct  considerations  urged :  first, 
that  they  had  no  ground  for  thinking  themselves  better  than 
others ;  and  second,  if  they  had  any  superiority  it  was  due  not ' 
themselves,  but  to  God.  So  that  in  either  case  their  inflation 
was  absurd  and  unchristian.  It  is  here  assumed  that  every 
thing,  whether  natural  or  gracious,  by  which  one  man  is  fa 
vourably  distinguished  from  another,  is  due  to  God ;  and  be 
ing  thus  due  to  him  and  not  to  the  possessor,  is  a  cause  of 
gratitude,  but  not  of  self-complacency  or  of  self-applause. 
This  is  true  even  of  those  things  which  are  acquired  by  great 
self-denial  and  exertion.  Paul  was  as  much  sell-formed  as  any 
man  ever  was,  and  yet  he  said,  By  the  grace  of  God  I  am 
what  I  am. 

8.  Now  ye  are  full,  now  ye  are  rich,  ye  have  reigned 
as  kings  without  us  :  and  I  would  to  God  ye  did  reign, 
that  we  also  might  reign  with  you. 

Having,  says  Calvin,  repressed  their  self-conceit,  he  here 
derides  it.  That  the  passage  is  ironical,  and  even  sarcastic, 
cannot  be  denied.  This  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which 
these  weapons  are  used  by  the  inspired  writers.  The  prophets 
especially  employ  them  freely  in  their  endeavours  to  convince 
the  people  of  the  folly  of  trusting  to  idols.  The  propriety  of 
the  use  of  weapons  so  dangerous  depends  on  the  occasion  and 
the  motive.  If  the  thing  assailed  be  both  wicked  and  foolish, 
and  if  the  motive  be,  not  the  desire  to  give  pain,  but  to  con 
vince  and  to  convert,  their  use  is  justified  by  Scriptural  exam 
ples.  There  is  an  evident  climax  in  the  verse.  Ye  are  not 
only  full,  but  more  than  full ;  ye  are  rich,  you  have  more  than 
enough ;  and  ye  are  not  only  rich,  ye  are  as  kings.  Now  (^S?/) 
already.  c  You  have  reached  the  goal  of  perfection  very  quick ; 
and  that  without  us.  You  have  left  us  poor  apostles  far  be 
hind  you.'  The  reference  is  to  the  benefits  of  redemption. 
Paul  represents  the  Corinthians  as  thinking  that  they  had  al- 


72  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  8.  9.  10. 

ready  attained  the  full  blessedness  of  the  Messiah's  reign; 
that  they  had  already  attained,  and  were  already  perfect.  He 
therefore  adds,  I  would  ye  did  reign.  '  I  would  that  the  con 
summation  of  Christ's  kingdom  had  really  come,  for  then  I 
would  share  with  you  in  its  glories.'  I  would  to  God  is  a 
translation  not  authorized,  or  at  least  not  demanded,  by  the 
original,  o^eXov,  which  in  the  later  Greek,  and  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  a  particle  of  wishing  or  an  interjection ;  would 
that,  0  that.  So  the  Greek  phrase  (//.?)  yeVotro)  so  often  ren 
dered  in  our  version,  "  God  forbid !  "  is  simply  an  expression 
of  aversion,  "  Let  it  not  be."  The  Scriptures  do  not  counte 
nance  such  appeals  to  God  as  seem  to  have  been  common 
when  our  version  was  made. 

9.  For  I  think  that  God  hath  set  forth  us  the  apos 
tles  last,  as  it  were  appointed  to  death :  for  we  are  made 
a  spectacle  unto  the  world,  and  to  angels,  and  to  men. 

For.  ' 1  would  that  the  consummation  were  really  come, 
for  we  apostles  are  now  very  far  from  being  treated  as  kings.' 
God  hath  set  forth,  i.  e.  publicly  exhibited.  He  has  made  us 
conspicuous  as  the  last,  the  lowest,  the  most  afflicted  of  men. 
The  original  does  not  admit  of  the  translation  proposed  by 
many,  us  the  last  apostles,  i.  e.  those  last  appointed—referring 
to  himself,  who  was,  as  he  says,  born  out  of  due  time.  The 
emphasis,  from  the  collocation  of  the  words,  is  thrown  on 
apostles  and  not  on  last.  What  follows  is  explanatory.  As 
appointed  unto  death.  This  does  not  merely  mean  that  they 
were  exhibited  as  men  daily  exposed  to  death ;  which  indeed 
was  true,  15,  30.  31.  2  Cor.  1,  8.  9.  11,  23  ;  but  also  that  they 
were  treated  as  men  condemned  to  death,  that  is,  as  convicts, 
men  to  whom  all  comforts  were  denied.  '  We  have  become  a 
spectacle  (^eWpov,  literally,  a  theatre ;  here  metonymically,  a 
show  exhibited  in  a  theatre)  to  the  universe  (KOCT/AU>),  as  well 
to  angels,  as  to  men.'  Such  were  the  sufferings  of  the  apostles 
that  men  and  angels  gazed  on  them  with  wonder,  as  people 
gaze  on  a  spectacle  in  a  theatre.  The  word  angels  when  used 
without  qualification  always  means  good  angels,  and  must  be 
so  understood  here. 

10.  We  (are)  fools  for  Christ's  sake,  but  ye  (are) 
wise  in  Christ ;  we  (are)  weak,  but  ye  (are)  strong  ;  ye 
(are)  honourable,  but  we  (are)  despised. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  10.  11.  12.  13.  73 

^  In  amplification  of  what  he  had  just  said,  he  contrasts  in 
this  and  the  following  verses,  his  situation  with  theirs  There 
are  two  things  included  in  these  contrasts.  The  opinion  which 
the  Corinthians  entertained,  and  that  which  was  entertained 
by  others.  We  are  fools  on  account  of  Christ;  our  devotion 
to  the  cause  of  Christ  is  such  that  you  and  others  regard  us  as 
fools;  ye  are  wise  in  Christ;  your  union  with  Christ  is  such 
that  you  regard  yourselves  and  are  regarded  by  others  as  wise 
W  e  are  weak,  we  feel  ourselves  to  be  so,  and  are  so  considered  •' 
ye  are  strong,  you  so  regard  yourselves,  and  are  so  regarded! 
You  are  honoured,  you  are  objects  of  respect,  we  of  contempt' 
All  this  doubtless  has  special,  though  not  exclusive,  reference 
to  the  false  teachers,  whose  state  in  Corinth  he  contrasts  w'tli 


his  own. 


11.  Even  unto  this  present  hour  we  both  hunger 
and  thirst,  and  are  naked,  and  are  buffeted,  and  have 
no  certain  dwelling-place  ; 

That  a  man  should  freely  subject  himself  to  hunger,  thirst 
and  nakedness,  and  submit  to  be  buffeted,  and  homeless  for 
no  selfish  purpose,  but  simply  to  preach  Christ,  was  indeed,  in 
the  eyes  of  the  world,  foolishness.  The  fact  that  Paul  Hadlv 
submitted  to  all  these  afflictions,  presented  his  case  in  glaring 
contrast  with  that  of  his  opposers  in  Corinth,  who  exposed 
themselves  to  no  such  sufferings  out  of  zeal  for  Christ. 

12.  13.  And  labour,  working  with  our  own  hands 
fleing  reviled,  we  bless  ;  being  persecuted,  we  suffer  it  • 
being  defamed,  we  entreat  :  we  are  made  as  the  filth 
of  the  world,  (and  are)  the  off-scouring  of  all  things 
unto  this  day. 


with  our  own  hands.    The  apostle,  in  a  subse- 
P      '  P"°VeS  at  1Cngth  Ms  right'  aad  tiiat  of  other 


tenn  refers  to  injuri^  W^Tr^ Tto  £KX 
4 


74  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  12.13 

We  sifffer  it,  i.  e.  we  patiently  submit  to  it  without  resistance 
or  complaint.  Being  defamed,  i.  e.  having  evil  deeds  or  mo 
tives  ascribed  to  us.  We  entreat  (Trapa/coAou/xei/),  we  exhort. 
That  is,  we  endeavour  to  meet  with  kindness  such  injurious 
imputations,  instead  of  repelling  them  with  anger  and  indig 
nation.  In  all  this  the  apostle  followed  the  example  of  Ins  di 
vine  master,  who  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled  not  again ; 
when  he  suffered,  he  threatened  not,  but  committed  himself 
to  him  who  judgeth  righteously,  1  Peter  2,  23. 

We  are  made  as  the  filth  of  the  earth,  or  rather  of  the 
world  (KOO-/XOV).  That  is,  we  are  regarded  as  the  filthiest  of 
mankind.  And  the  off-scouring  of  all  things,  or  of  all  men. 
That  is,  as  the  refuse  of  society.  The  words  (7re/H/ca$ap/m  and 
Trepu/^/xa)  rendered  filth  and  off-scouring,  signify,  the  former, 
what  is  carried  off  by  rinsing,  and  the  latter,  what  is  scraped 
off.  They  both  express  the  general  idea  of  refuse.  This  is  all 
the  context  demands  or  suggests.  The  apostle  sums  up  all 
he  had  previously  said,  by  saying,  '  We  are  regarded  as  the 
dregs  or  refuse  of  the  world.'  As  both  of  these  words,  how 
ever,  and  especially  the  former,  are  used  of  victims  chosen 
from  the  lowest  class  of  the  people,  who  in  times  of  calamity 
were  offered  in  sacrifice  to  the  gods,  it  is  very  generally  as 
sumed  that  Paul  here  refers  to  that  custom ;  arid  means  to 
say  that  he  was  regarded  as  one  of  those  who  were  considered 
only  fit  to  be  put  to  death  for  the  good  of  others.  This  brings 
out  the  same  idea  in  a  different  form.  It  is  not  probable, 
however,  that  any  such  allusion  is  here  intended ;  because  the 
custom  was  not  so  common  as  to  be  familiar  to  his  readers 
generally,  and  because  the  word  commonly  used  for  such 
sacrifices  was  not  TT€piKd3ap/j.a,  which  Paul  uses,  but  Ka^ap^a. 
In  Prov.  21,  18,  however,  it  is  said,  The  wicked  is  a  ransom 
(7re/Di/<a#ap/xa)  for  the  righteous.  Paul  certainly  did  not  con 
sider  himself  or  his  sufferings  as  a  propitiation  for  other  men. 
The  point  of  comparison,  if  there  be  any  allusion  to  the  custom 
in  question,  is  to  the  vileness  of  such  victims,  which  were  always 
chosen  from  the  worthless  and  despised.  This  and  other  pas 
sages  of  Paul's  writings  (comp.  2  Cor.  11,  23-27)  present  in  a 
very  strong  light  the  indignities  and  sufferings  which  he  en 
dured  in  the  service  of  Christ,  and  may  well  put  us  to  shame, 
as  well  as  the  self-satisfied  and  self-indulgent  Corinthians. 
What  are  we  doing  for  him  for  whom  Paul  did  and  suffered 
so  much  ? 


I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  14.  15.  75 

14.  I  write  not  these  things  to  shame  you,  but  as 
my  beloved  sons  I  warn  (you). 

Not  as  shaming  you  (eVrpeVwv)  write  I  these  things.  The 
word  used  signifies  to  invert,  to  turn  round,  or  back ;  and 
then,  generally,  to  move,  and  especially  to  move  to  shame. 
It  may  be  rendered  here,  '  I  write  not  these  things  as  moving 
you,'  i.  e.  to  work  upon  your  feelings.  The  use  of  the  word 
in  2  Thess.  3,  14,  and  Tit.  2,  8,  is  in  favour  of  the  common 
interpretation.  Paul's  object  in  drawing  such  a  contrast  be 
tween  their  case  and  his,  was  not  to  mortify  them ;  but  as  his 
beloved  sons,  i.  e.  out  of  love  to  them  as  his  sons,  he  says,  I 
warn  you.  The  word  (i/ov^ereto)  is  that  generally  used  to  ex 
press  parental  admonition  and  instruction.  His  design  was  to 
bring  the  truth  to  their  minds,  and  let  them  see  what  they 
really  were,  as  contrasted  with  what  they  imagined  them 
selves  to  be. 

15.  For  though  ye  have  ten  thousand  instructors 
in  Christ,  yet  (have  ye)  not  many  fathers  :  for  in  Christ 
Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel. 

Paul  was  entitled  to  admonish  them  as  sons,  for  he  was 
their  spiritual  father.  The  words  in  Christ  are  not  connected 
with  instructors,  as  though  the  sense  were,  4  instructors  who 
are  in  Christ,'  i.  e.  Christian  instructors.  The  position  of  the 
words  in  the  original  show  that  they  belong  to  the  verb. 
1  Though  ye  may  have  in  Christ,  i.  e.  in  reference  to  Christ, 
or  as  Christians,  many  teachers,  ye  have  not  many  fathers.' 
The  pedagogues  (ircuSaywyoi)  among  the  Greeks  were  usually 
slaves,  who  were  the  constant  attendants,  rather  than  the 
teachers,  of  the  boys  of  a  family.  They  had,  however,  the 
charge  of  their  education,  and  therefore  the  word  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament  for  instructors.  Paul  contrasts  his  rela 
tion  to  the  Corinthians  as  their  spiritual  father,  with  that  of 
their  other  teachers.  The  point  of  the  contrast  is  not  that  he 
loved  them,  and  they  did  not ;  or  that  they  were  disposed  to 
arrogate  too  much  authority,  and  he  was  not ;  but  simply, 
that  he  was  the  means  of  their  conversion,  and  they  were  not. 
His  relation  to  them  preceded  theirs  and  was  more  intimate 
and  tender. 

He  was  their  father,  "for  in  Christ  Jesus  he  had  begotten 
them."     That  is,  in  virtue  of  his  union  to  Christ,  as  his  apostle 


76  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  15.  16.  17. 

and  minister.  In  himself  he  could  do  nothing.  It  was  only 
as  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  Christ  that  he  was  successful 
in  bringing  them  to  the  obedience  of  faith.  Comp.  Gal.  2.  8. 
J3y  the  gospel,  i.  e.  by  means  of  the  gospel.  There  are  three 
agencies  in  the  conversion  of  men.  The  efficiency  is  in  Christ 
by  his  Spirit ;  the  administrative  agency  is  in  preachers  ;  the 
instrumental  in  the  word.  "What  God  has  joined  together,  let 
not  man  put  asunder.  We  cannot  do  without  the  first  and  the 
third,  and  ought  not  to  attempt  to  do  without  the  second. 
For  though  multitudes  are  converted  by  the  Spirit  through 
the  word,  without  any  ministerial  intervention,  just  as  grain 
springs  up  here  and  there  without  a  husbandman,  yet  it  is  the 
ordinance  of  God  that  the  harvest  of  souls  should  be  gathered 
by  workmen  appointed  for  that  purpose. 

16.  Wherefore,  I  beseecli  you,  be  ye  followers  of  me. 

Wherefore,  i.  e.  because  I  am  your  father.  Be  ye  follow 
ers  (/u/MjTai,  literally,  imitators)  of  me.  He  does  not  exhort 
them  to  become  his  followers  or  partisans,  instead  of  being  the 
followers  of  Apollos  or  of  Cephas.  But  as  he  had  spoken  of 
himself  as  being  humble,  self-denying  and  self-sacrificing  in  the 
cause  of  Christ,  he  beseeches  them  to  follow  his  example.  In 
11,1  he  says,  "  Be  ye  imitators  of  me,  as  I  am  of  Christ." 
Comp.  1  Thess.  1,  6.  2,  14.  Eph.  5,  1. 

17.  For  this  cause  have  I  sent  unto  you  Timotheus, 
who  is  my  beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord,  who 
shall  bring  you  into  remembrance  of  my  ways  which 
be  in  Christ,  as  I  teach  every  where  in  every  church. 

For  this  cause,  that  is,  to  secure  your  imitating  my  exam 
ple.  This  end,  Timothy,  whom  he  commends  as  his  son,  and 
as  faithful,  was  to  accomplish  by  vindicating  the  apostle  from 
the  aspersions  which  had  been  cast  upon  him,  by  reminding 
the  Corinthians  of  his  conduct  and  teaching  as  a  minister  of 
Christ.  Nothing  more  was  necessary  than  to  appeal  to  their 
own  knowledge  of  what  Paul  had  been  among  them.  My 
son  ;  not  only  the  object  of  my  love,  but  my  child  ;  one  whom 
I  have  begotten  through  the  gospel.  This  is  implied  from  the 
use  of  the  word  in  v.  14.  Comp.  1  Tim.  1,  2,  where  he  speaks 
of  him  as  "  his  own  son  in  the  faith."  The  fact  that  Timothy 
stood  in  this  endearing  relation  to  Paul,  was  a  reason  for  his 


I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  17.18.  77 

sending  him,  and  also  a  reason  why  they  should  receive  him 
with  confidence.  He  was,  however,  not  only  Paul's  son,  but 
faithful  in  the  Lord.  And  this  was  a  further  reason  both  for 
his  mission  and  for  their  regard  and  confidence.  Faithful  in 
the  Lord  means  faithful  in  the  service  of  Christ,  or  as  a  Chris 
tian.  The  words  in  the  Lord  admit  of  being  connected  with 
the  word  son,  so  as  to  give  the  sense,  "  My  faithful  son  in 
the  Lord." 

The  work  which  Timothy  was  to  do  was  to  remind  the 
Corinthians  of  what  they  seem  to  have  forgotten,  viz.,  of 
Paul's  ways  which  were  in  Christ,  how  he  taught,  &c.  The 
latter  clause  limits  and  explains  the  former.  It  was  not  so 
much  his  ways  or  deportment  in  general,  as  his  character  and 
conduct  as  a  teacher,  which  were  to  be  brought  to  mind. 
This,  however,  included  his  consistency,  his  zeal,  humility  and 
fidelity.  It  is  evident  from  2  Cor.  1,  17-20  that  inconsistency 
and  instability  both  as  to  his  doctrines  and  plans,  was  one  of 
the  objections  urged  against  Paul  in  Corinth,  as  in  other 
places,  comp.  Gal.  5,  11.  My  ways  ichich  be  in  Christ,  mean-s 
the  ways  which  I  follow  in  the  service  of  Christ.  It  was  his 
official  conduct  as  an  apostle  and  teacher  which  Timothy  was 
to  bring  to  their  recollection.  As  (/caucus),  in  the  sense  of 
how.  Acts  15,  14.  3  John  3.  He  is  to  remind  you  as,  i.  e. 
how,  I  teach  every  where  in  every  church.  Paul's  doctrine 
and  mode  of  teaching  were  every  where  the  same.  And  to 
this  fact  Timothy  was  to  bear  testimony,  and  thus  vindicate 
him  from  the  aspersions  of  his  enemies. 

18.  Now  some  are  puffed  up,  as  though  I  would 
not  come  to  you. 

His  sending  Timothy  was  not  to  be  considered  as  any  in 
dication  that  he  himself  did  not  intend  to  visit  Corinth,  as  some 
in  their  pride  and  self-confidence  supposed.  It  appears  from 
numerous  passages  in  this  and  the  following  epistle,  that  the 
false  teachers  in  Corinth  in  various  ways  endeavoured  to  un 
dermine  Paul's  authority.  They  called  in  question  his  apostle- 
ship,  9,  1-3.  2  Cor.  12, 12  ;  they  accused  him  of  lightness,  or 
instability,  2  Cor.  1,17;  they  represented  him  as  weak  in 
person  and  contemptible  in  speech,  2  Cor.  10, 10.  These  were 
the  persons  who  were  puffed  up,  that  is,  so  conceited  as  to 
their  own  importance,  and  as  to  the  effect  of  their  injurious 
representations  respecting  the  apostle,  us  to  give  out  that  he 


78  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  18.  19.  20. 

was  afraid  to  come  to  Corinth,  and  therefore  sent  Timothy  in 
his  place. 

19.  But  I  will  come  to  you  shortly,  if  the  Lord 
will,  and  will  know,  not  the  speech  of  them  which  are 
puffed  up,  but  the  power. 

In  opposition  to  this  boasting  of  his  opponents,  Paul  de 
clares  his  purpose  soon  to  visit  Corinth,  if  the  Lord  (i.  e. 
Christ)  will.  Comp.  16,  7,  and  Acts  16,  7.  This  is  a  recogni 
tion  both  of  the  providential  and  spiritual  government  of 
Christ.  It  supposes  the  external  circumstances,  and  the 
inward  state  of  the  apostle,  his  purposes  and  convictions  of 
duty,  to  be  determined  by  the  providence  and  Spirit  of  Christ. 
Thus  constantly  did  Paul  live  in  communion  with  Christ  as 
his  God,  submitting  to  him  and  trusting  to  him  at  all  times. 

And  will  know  not  the  speech  but  the  power  of  those  who 
are  puffed  up.  That  is,  not  what  they  can  say,  but  what  they 
can  do.  By  power  (StVa/xis)  some  understand  miraculous 
power,  which  does  not  suit  the  context.  Others  confine  it  to 
spiritual  power,  that  is,  the  power  derived  from  the  Spirit. 
The  word  is  sometimes  used  for  the  essential  power,  or  true 
nature  and  efficacy  of  a  thing.  And  this  sense  best  suits  the 
antithesis  between  speech  and  power.  Paul  meant  to  put  to 
the  test,  not  what  these  men  could  say,  but  what  they  really 
were  and  did;  that  is,  their  true  character  and  efficiency: 
Comp.  1  Thess.  1,  5.  2  Tim.  3,  5.  "  Having  the  form  of  god 
liness,  but  denying  the  power  (Swa/xtv)  thereof,"  i.  e.  its  real 
nature  and  efficacy. 

20.  For  the  kingdom  of  God  (is)  not  in  word,  but 
in  power. 

The  idea  expressed  by  the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God,"  in 
the  New  Testament,  is  very  comprehensive  and  manifold,  and 
therefore  indefinite.  The  two  senses  under  which  most,  if  not 
all,  its  applications  may  be  comprehended  are,  1.  The  royal 
authority  or  dominion  exercised  by  God  or  Christ ;  and  _  2. 
Those  over  whom  that  authority  extends,  or  who  recognize 
and  submit  to  it.  In  the  former  sense,  the  word  (/3acriAeia) 
kingdom  is  used  in  such  expressions  as,  Thy  kingdom  come, 
Of  his  kingdom  there  is  no  end,  The  sceptre  of  his  kingdom, 
&c.,  &c.  In  such  expressions  as,  To  enter  the  kingdom  of 


I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  20.21.  79 

God ;  The  children,  or  members  of  the  kingdom,  the  phrase 
means  the  community  over  which  God  reigns,  whether  in  this 
world,  or  in  the  world  to  come.  In  the  former  sense  the 
meaning  is  equivalent  to  the  reign  of  God.  Hence  to  say, 
Thy  kingdom  come,  and  to  say,  May  God  reign,  is  the  same 
thing.  Now  as  God  reigns  in  the  hearts  of  his  people — as 
well  as  in  the  church,  and  in  heaven — so  this  inward  spiritual 
dominion  is  called  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  this  sense  the 
passage,  "  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you,"  may  be  under 
stood  ;  and  also  Kom.  14,  17,  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  not 
meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost ; "  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  true  religion 
does  not  consist  in  external  observances,  but  in  inward  graces. 
This  is  the  form  of  the  idea  which  seems  best  suited  to  the 
passage  before  us.  '  God's  reign,  his  dominion  in  the  heart, 
or  true  religion,  does  not  consist  in  professions,  but  in  reality.' 
The  word  power  is  to  be  taken  in  the  same  sense  here  as  in  v. 
19.  Paul  says,  CI  will  know,  not  what  these  men  say,  but 
what  they  really  are  ;  for  the  kingdom  of  God  (or  religion) 
does  not  consist  in  what  is  apparent  and  outward,  but  in  what 
is  inward  and  real.'  It  is  not  a  semblance.,  but  a  reality. 

21.  What  will  ye  ?  shall  I  come  unto  you  with  a 
rod,  or  in  love,  and  (in)  the  spirit  of  meekness  ? 

Paul,  so  far  from  being  afraid  to  go  to  Corinth,  as  his  ene 
mies  imagined,  was  prepared  to  go  there  with  authority.  He 
was  their  spiritual  father  and  ruler.  He  had  the  right  and  the 
ability  to  punish  them.  It  depended  on  themselves  in  what 
character  he  should  appear  among  them ;  whether  as  a  pun- 
isher  or  as  a  comforter — whether  in  the  exercise  of  discipline, 
or  as  a  kind  and  tender  parent.  The  preposition  («/)  rendered 
with  in  the  first  clause,  is  the  same  as  that  rendered  in  in 
those  which  follow.  It  has  the  same  force  in  them  all.  It 
means  furnished  with,  attended  by.  That  is,  it  marks  the  at 
tending  circumstances.  The  expression  "spirit  of  meekness" 
is  commonly  understood  to  mean  a  meek  or  gentle  spirit  or 
disposition  of  mind.  As,  however,  the  word  spirit,  when  con 
nected  with  an  abstract  noun,  always  refers  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
as  in  the  phrases  Spirit  of  truth,  Spirit  of  wisdom,  Spirit  of 
adoption,  Spirit  of  love,  of  fear,  or  of  glory,  it  should  be  so 
understood  here.  Paul  asks  whether  he  should  come  with  se 
verity,  or  filled  with  the  Spirit  as  the  author  of  meekness.  It 


80  I.  CORINTHIANS  4,  21. 

is  plain  from  this,  as  from  numerous  other  passages,  that  the 
apostles  exercised  the  right  of  discipline  over  all  the  churches ; 
they  could  receive  into  the  communion  of  the  church,  or  ex 
communicate  from  it,  at  their  discretion.  This  prerogative  was 
inseparable  from  their  infallibility  as  the  messengers  of  Christ, 
sent  to  establish  ^  and  to  administer  his  kingdom.  The  follow 
ing  chapter  furnishes  a  notable  instance  of  the  exercise  of  this 
authority. 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  case  of  the  incestuous  member  of  the  church,  vs.  1-5.     Exhortation  to 
purity,  and  to  fidelity  in  discipline,  vs.  6-13. 

Reproof  for  retaining  an  unworthy  member  in  the  church. 
Vs.  1-13. 

THE  second  evil  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  to  which  Paul  di 
rects  his  attention,  is  allowing  a  man  guilty  of  incest  to  remain 
in  its  communion.  He  says  it  was  generally  reported  that 
fornication  was  tolerated  among  them,  and  even  such  fornica 
tion  as  was  not  heard  of  among  the  heathen,  v.  1.  He  re 
proves  them  for  being  inflated,  instead  of  being  humbled  and 
penitent,  and  excommunicating  the  offender,  v.  2.  As  they 
had^  neglected  their  duty,  he  determined,  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  and  as  spiritually  present  in  their  assembly,  to  deliver 
the ^  man  guilty  of  incest  to  Satan,  vs.  3-5.  He  exhorts  to 
purity,  in  language  borrowed  from  the  Mosaic  law  respecting 
the  passover.  As  during  the  feast  of  the  passover  all  leaven 
was  to  be  removed  from  the  habitations  of  the  Hebrews,  so  the 
Christian's  life  should  be  a  perpetual  paschal  feast,  all  malice 
and  hypocrisy  being  banished  from  the  hearts  and  from  the 
assemblies  of  believers,  vs.  6-8.  He  corrects  or  guards  against 
a  misapprehension  of  his  command  not  to  associate  with  the 
immoral.  He  shows  that  the  command  had  reference  to 
church  communion,  and  not  to  social  intercourse ;  and  there 
fore  was  limited  in  its  application  to  members  of  the  church. 
Those  out  of  the  church,  it  was  neither  his  nor  their  preroga 
tive  to  judge.  They  must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  God, 
vs.  9-13. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  1.  81 

1.  It  is  reported  commonly  (that  there  is)  fornica 
tion  among  you,  and  such  fornication  as  is  not  so  much 
as  named  among  the  Gentiles,  that  one  should  have 
his  father's  wife. 

Haying  dismissed  the  subject  of  the  divisions  in  the  church 
of  Corinth,  he  takes  up  the  case  of  the  incestuous  member  of 
that  church.  It  is  reported  commonly  (o/\ws  oxou'erai).  This 
may  mean  what  our  translation  expresses,  viz.,  it  was  a  matter 
of  notoriety  that  fornication  existed  among  them.  "OAws  may 
have  the  force  of  omnino,  '  nothing  is  heard  of  among  you  ex 
cept,  &c.'  Or  it  may  mean,  '  In  general,  fornication  is  heard  of 
among  you.'  That  is,  it  was  a  common  thing  that  fornication 
was  heard  of;  implying  that  the  offence,  in  different  forms, 
more  or  less  prevailed.  This  is  the  less  surprising,  consider 
ing  how  little  sins  of  that  class  were  condemned  among  the 
heathen,  and  how  notorious  Corinth  was  for  its  licentiousness. 
To  change  the  moral  sentiments  of  a  community  is  a  difficult 
and  gradual  work.  The  New  Testament  furnishes  sad  evi 
dence,  that  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts  brought  into  the 
church  many  of  the  errors  of  their  former  belief  and  practice. 
The  word  fornication  (iropvtia)  is  used  in  a  comprehensive 
sense,  including  all  violations  of  the  seventh  commandment. 
Here  a  particular  case  is  distinguished  as  peculiarly  atrocious. 
The  offence  was  that  a  man  had  married  his  step-mother.  His 
father's  wife^  is  a  Scriptural  periphrase  for  step-mother,  Lev. 
18,  8.  ^That  it  was  a  case  of  marriage  is  to  be  inferred  from 
the  uniform  use  of  the  phrase  to  have  a  woman  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  always  means,  to  marry.  Matt.  14,  4.  22, 
28.  1  Cor.»7,  2.  29.  Besides,  although  the  connection  con 
tinued,  the  offence  is  spoken  of  as  past,  vs.  2.  3.  Such  a 
marriage  Paul  says  was  unheard  of  among  the  Gentiles,  that 
is,  it  was  regarded  by  them  with  abhorrence.  Cicero,  pro 
Cluent.  5,  6.  speaks  of  such  a  connection  as  an  incredible 
crime,  and  as,  with  one  exception,  unheard  of.  It  is  probable 
from  2_Cor.  7,  12,  that  the  father  of  the  offender  was  still  alive. 
The  crime,  however,  was  not  adultery,  but  incest ;  for  other 
wise  the  apostle  would  not  have  spoken  of  it  as  an  unheard  of 
offence,  and  made  the  atrocity  of  it  to  arise  out  of  the  relation 
of  the  woman  to  the  offender's  father.  We  have  here  there 
fore  a  clear  recognition  of  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Le- 
vitical  law  concerning  marriage.  The  Scriptures  are  a  perfect 
rule  of  duty ;  and,  therefore,  if  they  do  not  prohibit  marriage 


82  I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  1.2. 

between  near  relatives,  such  marriages  are  not  sins  in  the 
sight  of  God.  To  deny,  therefore,  the  permanency  of  the  law 
recorded  in  Lev.  18,  is  not  only  to  go  contrary  to  the  authori 
ty  of  the  apostle,  but  also  to  teach  that  there  is  for  Christians 
uo  such  crime  as  incest. 

2.  And  ye  are  puffed  up,  and  have  not  rather 
mourned,  that  he  that  hath  done  this  deed  might  be 
taken  away  from  among  you. 

They  were  puffed  up,  i.  e.  elated  with  the  conceit  of  their 
good  estate,  notwithstanding  they  were  tolerating  in  their 
communion  a  crime  which  even  the  heathen  abhorred.  Some 
have  endeavoured  to  account  for  the  occurrence  of  such  an 
offence,  and  for  the  remissness  of  the  church  in  relation  to  it, 
by  supposing  that  both  the  offender  and  the  church  acted  on 
the  principle  taught  by  many  of  the  Jews,  that  all  bonds  of 
relationship  were  dissolved  by  conversion.  The  proselyte  to 
Judaism  became  a  new  creature.  He  received  a  new  name. 
His  father  was  no  longer  his  father,  or  his  mother  his  mother. 
The  Rabbins  therefore  taught  that  a  proselyte  might  lawfully 
marry  any  of  his  nearest  kindred.  It  is  possible  that  such  a 
notion  may  have  partially  prevailed  among  the  Jewish  portion 
of  the  church;  but  not  very  probable,  1.  Because  of  its  ab 
surdity  ;  2.  Because  its  prevalence  among  the  Jews  was  only 
after  their  reprobation  as  a  people  ;  3.  Because  the  wiser  class 
of  the  Jews  themselves  condemned  it.  It  is  more  probable, 
if  the  crime  was  defended  at  all,  it  was  on  the  principle  that 
the  Scriptures  and  nature  condemn  intermarriages  on  the 
ground  only  of  consanguinity  and  not  also  of  affinity.  A  prin 
ciple  opposed  to  Leviticus  18,  and  to  what  the  apostle  here 
teaches. 

And  have  not  rather  mourned  (eTrc^rJo-are),  i.  e.  grieved 
for  yourselves.  Your  condition,  instead  of  filling  you  with 
pride,  should  humble  you  and  make  you  sad.  That  (<W),  not 
so  that,  but  in  order  that,  as  expressing  the  design  which  the 
apostle  contemplated  in  their  humiliation  and  sorrow.  Comp. 
John  11,15.  '  I  would  that  ye  were  grieved  and  sorry  for 
yourselves,  in  order  that  he  who  had  done  this  deed  might  be 
taken  away.'  The  Zva  may  depend  on  a  word  implied.  l  Ye 
have  not  mourned,  desiring  that,  &c.'  Chrysostom  says  the 
idea  is,  that  they  should  have  acted  as  they  would  have  done 
had  a  pestilence  appeared  among  them  which  called  for 


I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  2.  3.  4.  5.  83 

mourning  and  supplication  in  order  that  it  might  be  removed. 
It  is  a  right  inherent  in  every  society,  and  necessary  for  its 
existence,  to  judge  of  the  qualification  of  its  own  members ; 
to  receive  those  whom  it  judges  worthy,  and  to  exclude  the 
unworthy.  This  right  is  here  clearly  recognized  as  belonging 
to  the  church.  It  is  also  clear  from  this  passage  that  this 
right  belongs  to  each  particular  church  or  congregation.  The 
power  was  vested  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  and  not  in  some 
officer  presiding  over  that  church.  The  bishop  or  pastor  was 
not  reproved  for  neglect  of  discipline  ;  but  the  church  itself, 
in  its  organized  capacity. 

3-5.  For  I  verily,  as  absent  in  body,  but  present  in 
spirit,  have  judged  already,  as  though  I  were  present, 
(concerning)  him  that  hath  so  done  this  deed,  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  when  ye  are  gathered 
together,  and  my  spirit,  with  the  power  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in 
the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

These^  verses  constitute  one  sentence,  and  must  be  taken 
together  in  order  to  be  understood.  The  construction  of  the 
principal  clauses  is  plain.  Paul  says,  '  I  have  determined  to 
deliver  this  man  unto  Satan.'  All  the  rest  is  subordinate  and 
circumstantial.  The  connection  of  the  subordinate  clauses  is 
doubtful.  Perhaps  the  best  interpretation  of  the  whole  pas 
sage  is  the  following :  '  I,  though  absent  as  to  the  body,  yet 
present  as  to  the  spirit,  have  determined  as  though  present,  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  ye  being  gathered  together,  and 
my  spirit  being  with  you,  with  the  power  (i.  e.  clothed  or 
armed  with  the  power)  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  deliver 
this  man  to  Satan.'  There  was  to  be  a  meeting  of  the  church, 
where  Paul,  spiritually  present,  would,  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  the  miraculous  power  with  which  he 
was  invested,  deliver  the  offender  to  the  power  of  Satan.  The 
connection  with  what  precedes  is  indicated  by  the  particle  for. 
I  would  ye  were  in  a  state  of  mind  to  remove  this  offender, 
for  I  have  determined  to  cut  him  off.'  I  verily  (/xeV),  or  I  at 
least.  '  Whatever  you  do  or  leave  undone,  I  at  least  will  do 
my  duty.'  Absent  in  body,  but  present  in  spirit.  Neither 
Paul's  capacity  nor  his  authority  to  judge,  nor  his  power  to 


84  I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  3.4.5. 

execute  his  judgment,  depended  on  his  bodily  presence.  He 
was  present  in  spirit.  This  does  not  mean  simply  that  he  was 
present  in  mind,  as  thinking  of  them  and  interested  in  their 
welfare ;  but  it  was  a  presence  of  knowledge,  authority,  and 
power.  Have  judged  already.  That  is,  without  waiting 
either  for  your  decision  in  the  matter,  or  until  I  can  be  per 
sonally  present  with  you. 

Him  that  hath  so  done  this  deed.  This  is  one  of  the  clauses, 
the  construction  of  which  is  doubtful.  Our  translators  insert 
the  word  concerning,  which  has  nothing  to  answer  to  it  in  the 
text,  unless  it  be  considered  a  part  of  the  translation  of  the 
preceding  verb,  (/ceKpt/ca,)  I  have  judged  concerning,  i.  e.  'I 
have  judged  or  passed  sentence  upon  him.'  This,  however, 
creates  embarrassment  in  the  explanation  of  the  fifth  verse. 
The  best  explanation  is  to  make  this  clause  the  object  of  the 
verb  to  deliver,  in  v.  5.  '  I  have  already  determined  to  de 
liver  him  who  did  this  deed.'  As,  however,  so  much  inter 
venes  between  the  object  and  the  verb,  the  object  (such  an 
one)  is  repeated  in  v.  5. 

In  the  name  of  Christ,  means  by  the  authority  of  Christ, 
acting  as  his  representative.  The  phrase  includes,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  denial  that  the  thing  done  was  done  in  virtue  of  his 
own  authority ;  and  on  the  other,  the  claim  of  the  right  to  act 
as  the  organ  and  agent  of  Christ.  This  clause  may  be  con 
nected  with  what  follows.  4  Ye  being  gathered  in  the  name 
of  Christ.'  Against  this  construction,  however,  it  may  be 
urged,  1.  That  the  words  would  in  that  case  most  naturally 
have  been  diiferently  placed.  That  is,  it  would  be  more  nat 
ural  to  say ;  '  Assembled  in  the  name  of  Christ,'  than  '  In  the 
name  of  Christ  assembled.'  2.  It  is  a  common  formula  for  ex 
pressing  apostolical  authority,  to  say,  '  In  the  name  of  Christ.' 
3.  The  sense  and  parallelism  of  the  clauses  are  better  if  these 
words  are  connected  with  the  main  verb,  '  I  have  determined 
in  the  name  of  Christ  to  deliver,'  &c.  Paul  was  acting  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  authority  received  from  Christ.  Compare 
2  Thess.  3,  6.  Acts  16,  18.  When  ye  are  gathered  together, 
and  my  spirit.  The  church  was  to  be  convened,  and  Paul 
spiritually  present.  The  sentence  was  not  to  be  passed  ^or 
executed  in  secret,  but  openly.  It  was  to  have  the  solemnity 
of  a  judicial  proceeding,  and,  therefore,  the  people  were  con 
vened,  though  they  were  merely  spectators.  With  the  power 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  may  be  connected  with  the 
immediately  preceding  words,  'My  spirit  invested  with  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  3.4.5.  85 

power  of  Christ  being  present.'  Or  with  what  follows,  'I 
have  determined  to  deliver  such  an  one  with  the  power  of 
Christ  to  Satan.'  The  sense  is  substantially  the  same.  The 
sentence  was  to  be  passed  and  carried  into  effect  in  the  name 
of  Christ  and  by  his  power. 

To  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan.  There  have  from  the 
earliest  times  been  two  prevalent  interpretations  of  this  ex 
pression.  According  to  one  view,  it  means  simply  excom 
munication  ;  according  to  the  other,  it  includes  a  miraculous 
subjection  of  the  person  to  the  power  of  Satan.  Those  who 
regard  it  as  merely  excommunication,  say  that  "  to  deliver  to 
Satan  "  answers  to  "  might  be  taken  away  from  you,"  in  v.  2, 
and  therefore  means  the  same  thing.  The  Corinthians  had 
neglected  to  excommunicate  this  offender,  and  Paul  says  he 
had  ^determined  to  do  it.  Besides,  it  is  argued  that  excom 
munication  is  properly  expressed  by  the  phrase  "  to  deliver 
to  Satan,"  because,  as  the  world  is  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  to 
cast  a  man  out  of  the  church,  was  to  cast  him  from  the  king 
dom  of  Christ  into  the  kingdom  of  Satan.  Comp.  Col.  1,  13. 
In  favour  of  the  idea  of  something  more  than  excommunica 
tion,  it  may  be  argued,  1.  That  it  is  clearly  revealed  in  scrip 
ture,  that  bodily  evils  are  often  inflicted  on  men  by  the  agency 
of  Satan.  2.  That  the  apostles  were  invested  with  the  power 
of  miraculously  inflicting  such  evils,  Acts  5,  1-11.  13,  9-11. 
2  Cor.  10,  8.  13,  10.  3.  That  in  1  Tim.  1,  20,  the  same  for 
mula  occurs  probably  in  the  same  sense.  Paul  there  says,  he 
had  delivered  Hymeneus  and  Alexander  unto  Satan,  that  they 
might  learn  not  to  blaspheme.  4.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
the  Jews  of  that  a^e  ever  expressed  excommunication  by  this 
phrase,  and  therefore  it  would  not,  in  all  probability,  be  un 
derstood  by  Paul's  readers  in  that  sense.  5.  Excommunica 
tion  would  not  have  the  effect  of  destroying  the  flesh,  in  the 
sense  in  which  that  expression  is  used  in  the  following  clause. 
Most  commentators,  therefore,  agree  in  understanding  the 
apostle  to  threaten  the  infliction  of  some  bodily  evil,  when  he 
speaks  of  delivering  this  offender  to  Satan.  For  the  destruc 
tion  of  the  flesh.  This  is  by  many  understood  to  mean,  for 
the  destruction  of  his  corrupt  nature,  so  that  the  end  contem 
plated  is  merely  a  moral  one.  But  as  flesh  here  stands  op 
posed  to  spirit,  it  most  naturally  means  the  body.  '  The  man 
Avas  delivered  to  Satan  that  his  body  might  be  afflicted,  in 
order  that  his  soul  might  be  saved.'  In  the  day  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  That  is,  the  day  when  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  come  the 


86  I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  5.6.7. 

second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation.  It  appears  from 
2  Cor.  7,  9-12,  that  this  solemn  exercise  of  the  judicial  power 
of  the  apostle,  had  its  appropriate  effect.  It  led  the  offender 
himself,  and  the  whole  church,  to  sincere  and  deep  repentance. 

G.  Your  glorying  (is)  not  good.  Know  ye  not 
that  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump  ? 

Your  boasting,  (Kcur^/za,)  ground  of  boasting.  You  have 
no  good  reason  to  boast  of  your  religious  state ;  on  the  con 
trary,  you  have  abundant  reason  to  be  alarmed.  Know  ye 
not ;  do  ye  not  consider  the  obvious  and  certain  danger  of 
this  evil  spreading  ?  A  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump. 
This  proverbial  expression  is  not  here  intended  to  express  the 
idea  that  one  corrupt  member  of  the  church  depraves  the 
whole,  because,  in  the  following  verses,  in  which  the  figure  is 
carried  out,  the  leaven  is  not  a  person,  but  sin.  The  idea, 
therefore,  is,  that  it  is  the  nature  of  evil  to  diffuse  itself.  ^This 
is  true  with  regard  to  individuals  and  communities.  A  single 
sin,  however  secret,  when  indulged,  diffuses  its  corrupting  in 
fluence  over  the  whole  soul ;  it  depraves  the  conscience  ;  it 
alienates  from  God  ;  it  strengthens  all  other  principles  of  evil, 
while  it  destroys  the  efficacy  of  the  means  of  grace  and  the 
disposition  to  use  them.  It  is  no  less  true  of  any  community, 
that  any  one  tolerated  evil  deteriorates  its  whole  moral  sense. 

7.  Purge  out  therefore  the  old  leaven,  that  ye  may 
be  a  new  lump,  as  ye  are  unleavened.  For  even  Christ 
our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us  : 

Purge  out  the  old  leaven  is  an  exhortation  to  purity,  as  the 
old  leaven  is  afterwards  said  to  be  malice  and  wickedness. 
This  leaven  is  said  to  be  old,  because  in  the  present  apostate 
state  of  our  nature,  what  is  old  is  evil.  Hence,  the  old  man 
is  a  scriptural  designation  of  our  corrupt  nature.  That  ye 
may  be  a  new  lump.  New,  i.  e.  pure — as  the  new  _  man  is  the 
renewed  nature.  As  ye  are  unleavened.  Leaven  in  this  con 
nection  is  a  figurative  expression  for  sin.  To  say,  therefore, 
that  they  were  unleavened,  is  to  say  that  they  were  holy. 
This  was  their  normal  state — as  Christians.  A  Christian  is  a 
new  or  holy  man.  The  argument,  therefore,  is  drawn  from 
the  acknowledged  fact  that  Christians,  as  such,  are  holy. 
Purge  out  the  leaven  of  wickedness,  that  ye  may  be  pure, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  7.8.  87 

for  believers  are  holy.'  For  even,  (/cat  yap,)  or,  for  also.  This 
is  a  second  reason  why  they  should  be  pure ;  for  Christ  our 
passover  is  slain  for  us.  Is  slain  /  rather,  is  sacrificed,  as 
Ovu>  means  to  Mil  and  offer  in  sacrifice,  or,  to  slay  as  a  vic 
tim.  When  the  paschal  lamb  was  slain,  the  Hebrews  were 
required  to  purge  out  all  leaven  from  their  houses,  Ex.  12,  15. 
The  death  of  Christ  imposes  a  similar  obligation  on  us  to 
purge  out  the  leaven  of  sin.  Christ  is  our  passover,  not  be 
cause  he  was  slain  on  the  day  on  which  the  paschal  lamb  was 
offered,  but  because  he  does  for  us  what  the  paschal  lamb  did 
for  the  Hebrews.  As  the  blood  of  that  lamb  sprinkled  on  the 
door-posts  secured  exemption  from  the  stroke  of  the  destroy 
ing  angel,  so  the  blood  of  Christ  secures  exemption  from  the 
stroke  of  divine  justice.  Christ  was  slain  for  us,  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  passover  was  slain  for  the  Hebrews.  It  was  a 
vicarious  death.  As  Christ  died  to  redeem  us  from  all  ini 
quity,  it  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  design  of  his  death,  but  a 
proof  that  we  are  not  interested  in  its  benefits,  if  AVC  live  in 
sin.  Our  passover,  viz.,  Christ.  The  words  v-n-ep  -fjpuv,  (for 
us),  are  omitted  in  all  the  older  manuscripts,  and  are  not 
necessary  to  the  sense. 

8.  Therefore  let  us  keep  the  feast,  not  with  old 
leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wicked 
ness  ;  but  with  the  unleavened  (bread)  of  sincerity  and 
truth. 

Let  us  therefore  keep  the  feast.  That  is,  since  our  pass- 
over  Christ  is  slain,  let  us  keep  the  feast.  This  is  not  an  ex 
hortation  to  keep  the  Jewish  passover — because  the  whole 
context  is  figurative,  and  because  the  death  of  Christ  is  no 
reason  why  the  Corinthians  should  keep  the  Jewish  passover. 
Christians  are  nowhere  exhorted  to  observe  the  festivals  of 
the  old  dispensation.  Neither  is  the  feast  referred  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  There  is  nothing  in  the  connection  to  suggest 
a  reference  to  that  ordinance.  A  feast  was  a  portion  of  time 
consecrated  to  God.  To  keep  the  feast  means,  'Let  your 
whole  lives  be  as  a  sacred  festival,  i.  e.  consecrated  to  God.' 
As  a  feast  lasting  seven  days  was  connected  with  the  slaying 
of  the  paschal  lamb;  so  a  life  of  consecration  to  God  should 
be  con  nected  with  the  death  of  our  passover — Christ.  This 
feast  is  not  to  be  celebrated  with  the  old  or  corrupt  leaven, 
Which  is  explained  to  mean  the  leaven  of  malice  ami  wicked* 


88  I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  8.  9. 

ness.  Hovrjpia,  wickedness,  is  a  stronger  word  than  KO.KLO.. 
badness.  Any  one  who  does  wrong  is  KCXKO'S,  bad  •  but  he 
who  does  evil  with  delight  and  with  persistency,  is  Trovr/po?. 
Hence  Satan  is  called  6  Trov^pos,  "  The  evil  one."  But  with 
the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth.  Sincerity  and 
truth  are  the  unleavened  bread  with  which  the  Christian's  life 
long  feast  should  be  celebrated.  Sincerity,  (ciAtKptWa,)  is 
purity,  transparent  clearness ;  something  through  which  the 
Bun  may  shine  without  revealing  any  flaw.  Truth  is  in  scrip 
ture  far  more  than  veracity.  In  its  subjective  sense,  it  means 
that  inward  state  which  answers  to  the  truth ;  that  moral  con 
dition  which  is  conformed  to  the  law  and  character  of  God. 

9.  I  wrote  unto  you  in  an  epistle  not  to  company 
with  fornicators : 

This  may  be  understood  to  refer  to  wThat  he  had  written 
above  in  this  epistle.  Comp.  Rom.  16,  22.  1  Thess.  5,  27. 
Col.  4,  16,  where  the  epistle,  fj  ema-ToX^,  means  the  epistle  he 
was  then  writing.  Calvin,  Beza,  and  almost  all  the  modern 
commentators,  understand  it  to  refer  to  an  epistle  no  longer 
extant.  This  is  obviously  the  more  natural  interpretation, 
first,  because  the  words  (lv  177  eTrioroA.^),  in  the  epistle,  would 
otherwise  be  altogether  unnecessary.  And,  secondly,  because 
this  epistle  does  not  contain  the  general  direction  not  to  com 
pany  with  fornicators ;  which,  it  would  seem  from  what  fol 
lows,  the  Corinthians  had  misunderstood.  There  is,  indeed, 
a  natural  indisposition  in  Christians  to  admit  that  any  of  the 
inspired  writings  are  lost.  But  nothing  is  more  natural  than 
the  assumption  that  the  apostles  wrote  many  short  letters, 
not  intended  as  pastoral  epistles  designed  for  the  church  in 
all  ages,  but  simply  to  answer  some  question,  or  to  give  some 
direction  relative  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  some  indi 
vidual  or  congregation.  '  I  wrote  to  you  in  the  epistle,'  natu 
rally  means  here  as  in  2  Cor.  7,  8,  the  epistle  which  you  have 
already  received,  and  not  the  one  which  he  was  then  writing ; 
and  it  is  not  wise  to  depart  from  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
words  simply  to  avoid  a  conclusion  we  are  unwilling  to  admit. 
The  church  has  all  the  inspired  writings  which  God  designed 
for  her  edification;  and  we  should  be  therewith  content. 
JVoZ  to  company  icith,  (^  o-wava^Lyvvcr^aL),  not  to  be  mixed 
up  together  with.  That  is,  not  to  associate  with.  See 
2  Thess.  3,  14.  This  may  have  reference  either  to  social  in 


I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  9.  10.  89 

tercourse  or  to  church  communion.  This  indefinite  command 
Paul  explains,  first,  by  stating  that  he  did  not  mean  to  forbid 
social  intercourse;  and  then  laying  he  did  intend  to  prohibit 
Christian  fellowship  with  the  wicked. 

10.  Yet  not  altogether  with  the  fornicators  of  this 
world,  or  with  the  covetous,  or  extortioners,  or  with 
idolaters  ;  for  then  must  ye  needs  go  out  of  the  world. 

Not  altogether.  This  limits  the  prohibition.  The  apostle 
did  not  intend  to  prohibit  all  intercourse  with  the  fornicators 
of  this  world.  This  would  be  an  impossibility ;  while  in  the 
world  we  must  have  more  or  less  intercourse  with  the  men  of 
the  world.  Or,  the  words  (ou  Traimos),  not  altogether,  may  be 
connected  with  the  words  I  wrote,  in  the  sense  of  by  no  means. 
Comp.  Rom.  3,  9.  *  I  ly  no  means  wrote  to  you  not  to  asso 
ciate  with  the  wicked.'  This,  although  perhaps  the  more 
common  explanation,  does  not  give  so  good  a  sense.  It  is  not 
so  much  a  positive  denial  of  having  so  written,  as  a  limitation 
of  the  application  of  his  command,  that  the  apostle  designs  to 
give.  The  world  means  mankind  as  distinguished  from  the 
church,  Gal.  4,  3.  Eph.  2,  2.  Col.  2,  8.  The  prohibition,  such 
as  it  was,  was  not  limited  to  any  one  class  of  the  immoral ;  it 
included  all^  classes.  The  covetous ;  those  who  will  have 
more  (TrXeweKTTys) ;  and  especially  those  who  defraud  for  the 
sake  of  gain.  In  the  Scriptures  the  controlling  love  of  gain  is 
spoken  of  as  a  sin  specially  heinous  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is 
called  idolatry,  Eph.  5,  5,  because  wealth  becomes  the  object 
supremely  loved  and  sought.  The  man,  therefore,  who  sacri 
fices  duty  to  the  acquisition  of  wealth ;  who  makes  gain  the 
great  object  of  his  pursuit,  is  a  covetous  man.  He  cannot  be 
a  Christian,  and  should  not,  according  to  the  apostle,  be  reco«-- 
nized  as  such. 

Or  with  extortioners,  i.  e.  the  ravenous ;  those  who  exact 
what  ^is  not  justly  due  to  them,  or  more  than  is  justly  due. 
The  sin  is  not  confined  to  exactions  by  force  or  open  robbery, 
but  to  all  undue  exactions.  The  man  who  takes  advantage  of 
another's  poverty,  or  of  his  necessities,  to  secure  exorbitant 
gain,  is  an  extortioner.  Or  with  idolaters,  those  who  either 
professedly  worship  false  gods,  or  who  do  what,  in  its  own 
nature,  and  in  the  common  judgment  of  men,  amounts  to  such 
worship.  This  is  said  to  be  the  earliest  known  instance  of  the 
use  of  the  word  eiSwAoXarp^s ;  it  is  never  used  in  the  LXX, 


90  I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  10.11. 

although  etSoAoi/  is  constantly  employed  in  that  version  in  the 
sense  of  false ^  gods.  For  then  ye  must  needs  go  out  of  the 
iDorld.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  apostle  did  not  prohibit 
all  intercourse  with  wicked  men.  We  should  have  to  seek 
another  world  to  live  in. 

11.  But  now  I  have  written  unto  you  not  to  keep 
company,  if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  forni- 
cator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunk 
ard,  or  an  extortioner  ;  with  such  an  one  no  not  to  eat. 

JRut  now  (ywl  Se).  If  taken  in  the  ordinary  sense,  these 
particles  refer  to  time.  '  In  the  former  epistle  I  wrote  to  you 
so  and  so,  but  now  I  write  to  you,  &c.'  They  may  have  an 
inferential  sense — therefore.  i  Since  ye  cannot  go  out  of  the 
world,  therefore  I  wrote  unto  you.'  The  apostle  is  explaining 
the  meaning  of  what  he  had  written.  '  I  did  not  write  this, 
but  I  wrote,  i.  e.  I  meant,  this.'  This  explanation  best  suits 
the  context,  and  agrees  better  with  the  force  of  the  tense 
(eypav//a)  here  used  ;  for  although  the  aorist  of  this  verb  is  used 
in  the  epistolary  style  in  reference  to  the  letter  in  the  pro 
cess  of  writing,  it  is  not  used  to  express  what  is  about  to  be 
written.  The  command  is  not  to  associate  with  any  one  who 
is  called  a  brother,  and  yet  is  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an 
idolater,  or  a  railer  (slanderer),  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extor 
tioner.  A  man  in  professing  to  be  a  Christian  professes  to  re 
nounce  all  these  sins  ;  if  he  does  not  act  consistently  with  his 
profession,  he  is  not  to  be  recognized  as  a  Christian.  We  are 
not  to  do  any  thing  which  would  sanction  the  assumption  that 
the  offences  here  referred  to  are  tolerated  by  the  gospel.  It 
may  appear  strange  that  Paul  should  assume  that  any  one  call 
ing  himself  a  Christian  could  be  an  idolater.  By  idolatry, 
however,  he  understands  not  merely  the  intentional  and  con 
scious  worship  of  false  gods,  but  doing  any  thing  which, 
according  to  the  common  judgment  of  men,  expresses  such 
worship.  Thus  eating  sacrifices  within  the  precincts  of  a 
temple  was  an  act  of  heathen  worship,  as  much  as  par 
taking  of  the  Lord's  supper  is  an  act  of  Christian  worship. 
And  yet  some  of  the  Corinthians  did  not  hesitate  to  eat  of 
heathen  sacrifices  under  those  circumstances,  10,  14-22.  The 
principle  laid  down  by  the  apostle  is,  that  to  join  in  the  reli 
gious  rites  of  any  people  is  to  join  in  their  worship,  whether 
We  so  intend  it  or  not. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  11.12.13.  91 

With  such  an  one  no  not  to  eat.  This  does  not  refer  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  which  is  never  designated  as  a  meal.  The 
meaning  is,  that  we  are  not  to  recognize  such  a  man  in  any 
way  as  a  Christian,  even  by  eating  with  him.  It  is  not  the  act 
of  eating  with  such  persons  that  is  forbidden.  Our  Lord  eat 
with  publicans  and  sinners,  but  he  did  not  thereby  recognize 
them  as  his  followers.  So  we  may  eat  with  such  persons  as 
are  here  described,  provided  we  do  not  thereby  recognize 
their  Christian  character.  This  is  not  a  command  to  enforce 
the  sentence  of  excommunication  pronounced  by  the  church, 
by  a  denial  of  all  social  intercourse  with  the  excommunicated. 
The  command  is  simply  that  we  are  not,  in  any  way,  to  recog 
nize  openly  wicked  men  as  Christians.  This  passage,  there 
fore,  affords  no  plea  for  the  tyranny  of  Romanists  in  refusing 
all  the  necessaries  of  life  to  those  whom  they  cast  out  of  the 
church. 

12.  Eor  what  have  I  to  do  to  judge  them  also  that 
are  without  ?  do  not  ye  judge  them  that  are  within  ? 

Those  without  /  those  out  of  the  church.  Mark  4,  II. 
Col.  4,  5.  1  Thess.  4, 12.  The  command  of  the  apostle  had 
reference  only  to  those  Avithin  the  church,  for  it  was  not  his 
prerogative  to  judge  those  that  are  without.  The  Corinthians 
acted  on  the  same  principle.  They  confined  church  discipline 
to  church  members,  and  therefore  should  not  have  understood 
his  injunction  not  to  company  with  the  wicked  to  apply  to 
others  than  to  those  within  the  church. 

13.  But   them   that   are   without   God  judgeth. 
Therefore  put  away  from  among  yourselves  that  wicked 
person. 

God,  and  not  the  church,  is  the  judge  of  those  who  are 
without.  The  verb  may  be  accented  so  as  to  express  either 
the  present  or  the  future.  God  judges  (/cpu/a) ;  or,  God  will 
judge  (Kpu/et).  The  present  gives  the  better  sense,  as  express 
ing  the  divine  prerogative,  and  not  merely  the  assurance  of  a 
future  judgment.  Therefore  put  aioay,  literally,  according  to 
the  common  text  (KO.I  e£apetre),  and  ye  shall  put  aicay  ;  which 
seems  to  have  been  borrowed  from  Deut.  24,  7.  The  better 
reading  is  (e^apare)  put  away.  It  is  a  simple  imperative  in 
junction,  or  necessary  application  of  the  principle  of  Christian 


92  I.  CORINTHIANS  5,  13.  6,  1. 

communion  just  laid  down.  This  passage  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  interpretation  given  to  verses  3-5.  In  consequence 
of  their  neglect  of  duty,  Paul  determined  to  deliver  the  in 
cestuous  member  of  the  Corinthian  church  to  Satan.  He  calls 
upon  them  to  recognize  the  validity  of  that  sentence,  and  to 
carry  it  into  effect.  The  sentence  was  pronounced ;  they,  so 
far  as  it  involved  their  communion,  were  to  execute  it. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  distinct  paragraphs.  The  first,  vs.  1-11,  relates 
to  lawsuits  before  heathen  magistrates.  The  second,  vs.  12-20,  to  the 
abuse  which  some  had  made  of  the  principle,  "All  things  are  lawful." 

On  going  to  law  before  the  heathen.    Vs.  1-11. 

PAUL  expresses  surprise  that  any  Christian  should  prosecute 
a  fellow  Christian  before  a  heathen  judge,  v.  1.  If  Christians 
are  destined  to  judge  the  world,  and  even  angels,  they  may 
surely  settle  among  themselves  their  worldly  affairs,  vs.  2.  3. 
If  they  had  such  suits,  must  they  appoint  those  whom  the 
church  could  not  esteem  to  decide  them  ?  Was  there  not  one 
man  among  themselves  able  to  act  as  a  judge  ?  vs.  4-6.  It 
was  a  great  evil  that  they  had  such  lawsuits.  It  would  be 
better  to  submit  to  injustice,  v.  7.  Instead,  however,  of  sub 
mitting  to  wrong,  they  committed  it,  v.  8.  He  solemnly  as 
sures  them  that  the  unjust,  or  rapacious,  or  corrupt  should 
not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  vs.  9.  10.  They  had  been 
such,  but  as  Christians  they  were  washed  from  these  defile 
ments,  and  justified  through  Christ  and  by  his  Spirit,  v.  11. 

1.  Dare  any  of  you,  having  a  matter  against  an 
other,  go  to  law  before  the  unjust,  and  not  before  the 
saints  ? 

The  third  evil  in  the  church  of  Corinth  which  the  apostle 
endeavours  to  correct,  was  the  prosecuting  legal  suits  before 
heathen  judges.  There  was  no  necessity  for  this  practice. 
The  Roman  laws  allowed  the  Jews  to  settle  their  disputes 


I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  1.  93 

about  property  by  arbitration  among  themselves.  And  the 
early  Christians,  who  were  not  distinguished  as  a  distinct  class 
from  the  Jews,  had  no  doubt  the  same  privilege.  It  is  not 
necessary,  however,  to  assume  that  the  apostle  has  reference 
here  to  that  privilege.  It  was  enough  that  these  civil  suits 
might  be  arranged  without  the  disgraceful  spectacle  of  Chris 
tian  suing  Christian  before  heathen  magistrates.  The  Rab 
bins  say,  "  It  is  a  statute  which  binds  all  Israelites,  that  if  one 
Israelite  has  a  cause  against  another,  it  must  not  be  prosecuted 
before  the  Gentiles."  JEisenmenger's  Entdcckt.  Judenth.  ii. 
p.  427. 

Dare  any  of  you  ?  Is  any  one  so  bold  as  thus  to  shock 
the  Christian  sense  of  propriety?  Having  a  matter.  The 
Greek  phrase  (Trpay^a  ZX€LV)  means  to  have  a  suit,  which  is 
obviously  the  sense  here  intended.  To  go  to  law  before  the 
unjust.  It  is  plain  that  by  the  unjust  are  meant  the  heathen. 
But  why  are  they  so  called  ?  As  the  terms  holy  and  righteous 
are  often  used  in  a  technical  sense  to  designate  the  professed 
people  of  God  without  reference  to  personal  character ;  so  the 
terms  sinners  and  unjust  are  used  to  designate  the  heathen  as 
distinguished  from  the  people  of  God.  The  Jews  as  a  class 
were  "holy,  and  the  Gentiles  were  unholy  ;  though  many  of 
the  latter  were  morally  much  better  than  many  of  the  former. 
In  Gal.  2,  15,  Paul  says  to  Peter,  "We  are  by  nature  Jews, 
and  not  sinners  of  the  Gentiles ; "  meaning  thereby  simply 
that  they  were  not  Gentiles.  The  reason  why  the  heathen  as 
such  are  called  the  unjust,  or  sinners,  is  that  according  to  the 
Scriptures  the  denial  of  the  true  God,  and  the  worship  of  idols, 
is  the  greatest  unrighteousness ;  and  therefore  the  heathen, 
because  heathen,  are  called  the  unrighteous.  The  word  un 
just  is  too  limited  a  word  to  answer  fully  to  the  Greek  term 
(aStKos),  which  in  its  scriptural  sense  means  wicked,  not  con 
formed  to  the  law  of  God.  In  this  verse  the  opposite  term, 
saints,  or  the  holy,  designates  Christians  as  a  class;  and, 
therefore,  the  unjust  must  mean  the  heathen  as  a  class.  The 
complaint  against  the  Corinthians  was  not  that  they  went  to 
law  before  unjust  judges,  but  that  they  appealed  to  heathen 
j  udges.  It  is  true  their  being  heathen  proved  them  to  be  un 
righteous  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  term ;  but  it  wras  not 
their  moral  character,  so  much  as  their  religious  status,  that 
was  the  ground  of  the  complaint.  It  was  indeed  not  to  be 
expected  that  men  governed  by  heathen  laws  and  principles 
of  morals,  would  be  as  fair  and  just  as  those  governed  by 


94  I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  1.2. 

Christian  principles ;  but  what  Paul  complained  of  was,  not 
that  the  Corinthians  could  not  get  justice  at  the  hands  of 
heathen  magistrates,  but  that  they  acted  unworthily  of  their 
dignity  as  Christians  in  seeking  justice  from  such  a  source. 
Paul  himself  appealed  to  Cesar.  It  was,  therefore,  no  sin  in 
his  eyes  to  seek  justice  from  a  heathen  judge,  when  it  could 
not  otherwise  be  obtained.  But  it  was  a  sin  and  a  disgrace 
in  his  estimation  for  Christians  to  appeal  to  heathen  magis 
trates  to  settle  disputes  among  themselves. 

2.  Do  ye  not  know  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the 
world  ?  and  if  the  world  shall  be  judged  by  you,  are  ye 
unworthy  to  judge  the  smallest  matters  ? 

Do  you  not  knoio  f  a  form  of  expression  often  used  by  the 
apostle  when  he  wishes  to  bring  to  mind  some  important  truth, 
which  his  readers  knew  but  disregarded.  It  was  a  conceded 
point,  one  which  entered  into  the  common  faith  of  Christians, 
that  the  saints  are  to  judge  the  world.  The  saints  (ot  uytoi), 
the  people  of  God,  who  are  called  saints  because  separated 
from  the  world  and  consecrated  to  his  service.  Those,  there 
fore,  who  are  of  the  world  and  devoted  to  its  pursuits,  are  not 
saints.  The  saints  shall  judge  the  world.  This  does  not 
mean  that  the  time  would  come  when  Christians  would  be 
come  magistrates ;  nor  that  the  conduct  of  the  saints  would 
condemn  the  world,  as  it  is  said  the  Queen  of  the  South  would 
condemn  those  who  refused  to  listen  to  the  words  of  Christ, 
Matt.  12,  42.  The  context  and  spirit  of  the  passage  require 
that  it  should  be  understood  of  the  future  and  final  judgment. 
Saints  are  said  to  sit  in  judgment  on  that  great  day  for  two 
reasons ;  first,  because  Christ,  who  is  to  be  the  judge,  is  the 
head  and  representative  of  his  people,  in  whom  they  reign 
and  judge.  The  exaltation  and  dominion  of  Christ  are  their 
exaltation  and  dominion.  This  is  the  constant  representation 
of  Scripture,  Eph.  2,  6.  In  Heb.  2,  5-9  the  declaration  that 
all  things  are  subject  to  man,  is  said  to  be  fulfilled  in  all  things 
being  made  subject  to  Christ.  Secondly,  because  his  people 
are  to  be  associated  with  Christ  in  his  dominion.  They  are 
joint  heirs  with  him,  Rom.  8,  17.  If  we  suifer,  we  shall  reign 
with  him,  2  Tim.  2,  12.  In  Dan.  7,  22  it  was  predicted  that 
judgment  (the  right  and  power  to  judge)  should  be  given  to 
the  saints  of  the  Most  High.  Comp.  Matt.  19,  28.  Luke  22, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  2.3.  95 

30.  Rev.  2,  26.  27.  If  then,  asks  the  apostle,  such  a  destiny 
as  this  awaits  you,  are  ye  unfit  to  decide  the  smallest  matters  ? 
If  the  ivorld  (mankind)  shall  be  judged  by  you  (ev  {yxtv),  i.  e. 
before  you  as  judges.  Are  ye  unworthy  (dva^toi),  i.  e.  of  too 
little  weight  or  value,  having  neither  the  requisite  dignity  nor 
ability.  Unworthy  of  the  smallest  matters.  The  word  (/cpi- 
•njpioy),  here  rendered  matters,  in  the  sense  of  causes,  or 
matters  for  judgment,  means,  1.  A  criterion  or  test ;  a  rulOj 
of  judgment.  2.  A  tribunal  or  place  of  judgment,  and  then, 
the  court  or  assembled  judges.  Ex.  21,  6.  Judges  5,  10.  Dan. 
7,  10,  and  in  the  New  Testament,  James  2,  6.  3.  The  trial, 
i.  e.  the  process  of  judgment.  4.  The  cause  itself,  or  matters 
to  be  tried.  This  last  sense  is  doubtful,  although  it  is  gene 
rally  adopted  here  because  it  suits  so  well  the  fourth  verse, 
where  the  same  word  occurs.  The  second  sense  would  suit 
this  verse.  '  If  ye  are  to  sit  with  Christ  on  the  seat  of  uni 
versal  judgment,  are  ye  unworthy  of  the  lowest  judgment 
seats.'  But  the  fourth  verse  is  in  favour  of  the  explanation 
adopted  in  our  version.  '  Are  ye  unfit  for  the  least  causes  ? ' 

3.  Know  ye  not  that  we  shall  judge  angels  ?  how 
much  more  things  that  pertain  to  this  life  ? 

As,  according  to  Scripture,  only  the  fallen  angels  are  to  be 
judged  in  the  last  day,  most  commentators  suppose  the  word 
must  here  be  restricted  to  that  class.  Not  only  men,  but  fall 
en  angels  are  to  stand  before  that  tribunal  on  which  Christ 
and  his  church  shall  sit  in  judgment.  If  agreeably  to  the  con 
stant  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  according  to  which  (as  remarked 
above,  4,  9)  the  word  when  unqualified  means  good  angels,  it  be 
understood  of  that  class  here,  then  the  explanation  is  probably 
to  be  sought  in  the  comprehensive  sense  of  the  word  to  judge. 
As  kings  were  always  judges,  and  as  the  administration  of  jus 
tice  was  one  of  the  principal  functions  of  their  office,  hence  to 
rule  and  to  judge  are  in  Scripture  often  convertible  terms.  To 
judge  Israel,  and  to  rule  Israel,  mean  the  same  thing.  And  in 
Matt.19, 28,  "  sitting  on  twelve  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes 
of  Israel,"  means  presiding  over  the  twelve  tribes.  So  in  the 
case  before  us,  "  Know  ye  not  that  we  shall  judge  angels  ?  " 
may  mean,  '  Know  ye  not  that  we  are  to  be  exalted  above  the 
angels,  and  preside  over  them ;  shall  we  not  then  preside  over 
earthly  things?'  This  explanation  avoids  the  difficulty  of 
supposing  that  the  good  angels  are  to  be  called  into  judgment ; 


96  I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  3.4.5. 

and  is  consistent  with  what  the  Bible  teaches  of  the  subordi 
nation  of  angels  to  Christ,  and  to  the  church  in  him. 

4.  If  then  ye  have  judgments  of  things  pertaining 
to  this  life,  set  them  to  judge  who  are  least  esteemed 
in  the  church. 

Paul  laments  that  there  were  litigations  among  them  ;  but 
if  they  could  not  be  avoided,  Christians  should  act  in  reference 
to  them  in  a  manner  consistent  with  their  high  destiny. 
Here  the  word  (xpirripia),  rendered  judgments,  seems  so  natu 
rally  to  mean  causes,  things  to  be  tried,  that  that  sense  of  the 
word  is  almost  universally  assumed.  It  may,  however,  mean 
trials,  judicial  processes  ;  which  is  more  in  accordance  with 
the  established  use  of  the  words.  Set  them  to  judge  who  are 
least  esteemed  in  the  church.  The  original  admits  of  this 
translation.  If  the  passage  be  so  rendered,  then  it  has  a  sar 
castic  tone.  '  Set  your  least  esteemed  members  to  decide 
such  matters.'  It  may,  however,  be  read  interrogatively, 
4  Do  ye  set  as  judges  those  least  esteemed  in  (i.  e.  by)  the 
church  (that  is,  the  heathen)  ? »  This  translation  is  generally 
preferred  as  best  in  keeping  with  the  context.  The  sentence 
is  emphatic.  '  Those  despised  (see  1,  28)  by  the  church, — 
those  do  you  set  to  judge  ? '  It  is  an  expression  of  surprise 
at  their  acting  so  unworthily  of  their  high  calling. 

5.  I  speak  to  your  shame.     Is  it  so,  that  there  is 
not  a  wise  man  among  you  ?  no,  not  one  that  shall  be 
able  to  judge  between  his  brethren  ? 

I  speak  to  your  shame.  That  is,  I  desire  to  produce  in 
you  a  sense  of  shame.  This  may  refer  either  to  what  precedes 
or  to  what  follows.  It  was  adapted  to  make  them  ashamed 
that  they  had  acted  so  unworthily  of  their  dignity  as  Chris 
tians  ;  and  it  was  no  less  disgraceful  to  them  to  suppose  that 
there  was  not  in  the  church  a  single  man  fit  to  act  as  arbitra 
tor.  Who  shall  be  able.  The  future  here  expresses  what 
should  or  may  happen.  .Between  his  brethren;  literally,  be 
tween  his  brother  •  i.  e.  between  his  complaining  brother  and 
him  against  whom  the  complaint  was  brought. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  6.  7.  8.  97 

6.  But  brother  goeth  to  law  with  brother,  and  that 
before  the  unbelievers. 

Instead  of  referring  the  matter  to  the  arbitration  of  a  ju 
dicious  brother,  ye  go  to  law,  and  that  before  unbelievers. 
There  are  here  two  grounds  of  complaint.  First,  that  they 
went  to  law  (/cpiVe<r$cu)  instead  of  resorting  to  arbitration 
(StaKptvat).  Secondly,  that  they  made  unbelievers  their  judges. 
By  unbelievers  are  to  be  understood  the  heathen.  In  this 
connection  the  heathen  are  designated  under  one  aspect,  the 
unjust ;  under  another,  the  despised ;  and  under  a  third,  the 
unbelieving,  i.  e.  not  Christians — but,  as  the  implication  in 
this  particular  case  is,  pagans.  And  that  (/cat  TOVTO),  a  form 
of  expression  often  used  when  particular  stress  is  to  be  laid  on 
the  circumstance  indicated. 

7.  Now  therefore  there  is  utterly  a  fault  among 
you,  because  ye  go  to  law  one  with  another.     Why  do 
ye  not  rather  take  wrong  ?     Why  do  ye  not  rather 
(suffer  yourselves  to)  be  defrauded  ? 

Now  therefore  (^  plv  ow),  already  indeed  therefore. 
That  is,  these  lawsuits  are  already,  or  in  themselves  (6Aws), 
an  evil  irrespective  of  their  being  conducted  before  heathen 
judges.  The  word  rj-my/Aa  does  not  so  properly  mean  fault 
as  loss  or  evil.  It  is  a  loss  or  evil  to  you  to  have  these  litiga 
tions.  See  Rom.  11,  12,  where  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  is 
called  their  (^TT^O.)  loss.  Why  do  you  not,  &c.  That  is, 
why,  instead  of  going  to  law  with  your  brethren,  do  you  not 
rather  submit  to  injustice  and  robbery  ?  This  is  a  clear  inti 
mation  that,  under  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Corinthians 
were  placed,  it  was  wrong  to  go  to  law,  even  to  protect  them 
selves  from  injury.  That  this  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  gen 
eral  rule  of  Christian  conduct  is  plain,  because,  under  the  old 
dispensation,  God  appointed  judges  for  the  administration  of 
justice  ;  and  because  Paul  himself  did  not  hesitate  to  appeal 
to  Cesar  to  protect  himself  from  the  injustice  of  his  country 
men. 

8.  Nay,  ye  do  wrong,  and  defraud,  and  that  (your) 
brethren. 

Instead  of  having  reached  that  state  of  perfection  in  which 
o 


98  I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  8.  9.  10. 

ye  can  patiently  submit  to  injustice,  yc  are  yourselves  unjust 
and  fraudulent.  This  must  have  been  the  case  with  some  of 
them,  otherwise  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  these  lawsuits. 
Their  oifence  was  aggravated,  because  their  own  brethren 
were  the  object  of  their  unjust  exactions. 

9.  10.  Know  ye  not  that  the  unrighteous  shall  not 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Be  not  deceived  :  nei 
ther  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  adulterers,  nor  effem 
inate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves  with  mankind,  nor 
thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers,  nor 
extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  tendency  to  divorce  religion  from  morality  has  mani 
fested  itself  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  and  under  all  forms  of 
religion.  The  pagan,  the  Jew,  the  Mohammedan,  the  nomi 
nal  Christian,  have  all  been  exact  in  the  performance  of  reli 
gious  services,  and  zealous  in  the  assertion  and  defence  of 
what  they  regarded  as  religious  truth,  while  unrestrained  in 
the  indulgence  of  every  evil  passion.  This  arises  from  look 
ing  upon  religion  as  an  outward  service,  and  God  as  a  being 
to  be  feared  and  propitiated,  but  not  to  be  loved  and  obeyed. 
According  to  the  gospel,  all  moral  duties  are  religious  ser 
vices  ;  and  piety  is  the  conformity  of  the  soul  to  the  image 
and  will  of  God.  So  that  to  be  religious  and  yet  immoral  is, 
according  to  the  Christian  system,  as  palpable  a  contradiction 
as  to  be  good  and  wicked.  It  is  evident  that  among  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Corinthian  church,  there  were  some  who  retained 
their  pagan  notion  of  religion,  and  who  professed  Christianity 
as  a  system  of  doctrine  and  as  a  form  of  worship,  but  not  as  a 
rule  of  life.  All  such  persons  the  apostle  warned  of  their  fatal 
mistake.  He  assures  them  that  no  immoral  man, — no  man 
who  allows  himself  the  indulgence  of  any  known  sin,  can  be 
saved.  This  is  one  of  the  first  principles  of  the  gospel,  and 
therefore  the  apostle  asks,  I£noio  ye  not  that  the  unrighteous 
shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  (rod  f  Are  ye  Christians  at 
all,  and  yet  ignorant  of  this  first  principle  of  the  religion  you 
profess?  The  unrighteous  in  this  immediate  connection, 
means  the  unjust ;  those  who  violate  the  principles  of  j  ustice 
in  their  dealings  with  their  fellow-men.  It  is  not  the  unjust 
alone,  however,  who  are  to  be  thus  debarred  from  the  Re- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  10.11.  99 

deemer's  kingdom — but  also  those  who  break  any  of  the  com 
mandments  of  God,  as  this  and  other  passages  of  Scripture  dis 
tinctly  teach. 

Believers  are,  in  the  Bible,  often  called  heirs.  Their  in 
heritance  is  a  kingdom ;  that  kingdom  which  God  has  estab 
lished,  and  which  is  to  be  consummated  in  heaven,  Luke  12, 
32.  Matt.  24,  34,  &c.  &c.  From  this  inheritance  all  the  im 
moral,  no  matter  how  zealous  they  may  be  in  the  profession 
of  the  truth,  or  how  assiduous  in  the  performance  of  religious 
services,  shall  be  excluded.  Let  it  also  be  remembered  that 
immorality,  according  to  the  Bible,  does  not  consist  exclusively 
in  outward  sins,  but  also  in  sins  of  the  heart ;  as  covetousness, 
malice,  envy,  pride,  and  such  like,  Gal.  5,  21.  No  winder 
that  the  disciples,  on  a  certain  occasion,  asked  their  master, 
Lord,  are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?  or  that  the  Lord  answered 
them  by  saying,  "  Strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way 
that  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it,"  Luke  1 3,  24. 

11.  And  such  were  some  of  you:  but  ye  are 
washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our 
God. 

And  such  icere  some  of  you.  This  is  understood  by  many 
as  equivalent  to  Such  were  you.  The  word  (rives)  being  re 
dundant,  or  the  idea  being,  '  Some  were  impure,  some  drunk 
ards,  some  violent,  &c.,  or  ravrd  rives  being  taken  together  as 
equivalent  to  roioCroi.  The  natural  explanation  is,  that  the 
apostle  designedly  avoided  charging  the  gross  immoralities 
just  referred  to  upon  all  the  Corinthian  Christians  in  their 
previous  condition.  With  regard  to  the  three  terms  wiiich 
follow,  washed,  sanctified,  justified,  they  may  be  taken,  as  by 
Calvin  and  others,  to  express  the  same  idea  under  different 
aspects.  That  idea  is,  that  they  had  been  converted,  or  com 
pletely  changed.  They  had  put  off  the  old  man,  and  put  on 
the  new  man.  Their  sins,  considered  as  filth,  had  been  washed 
away ;  considered  as  pollution,  they  had  been  purged  or  puri 
fied  ;  considered  as  guilt,  they  had  been  covered  with  the 
righteousness  of  God,  Rom.  1,  17.  The  majority  of  commen 
tators  take  the  several  terms  separately,  each  expressing  a 
distinct  idea.  In  what  precise  sense  each  of  these  words  is  to 
be  understood,  becomes,  then,  somewhat  doubtful. 


100  I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  11. 

jBut  ye  are  washed.  The  word  here  used  ( 
is  in  the  middle  voice,  and  therefore  may  be  rendered,  ye 
have  washed  yourselves,  or,  permitted  yourselves  to  be  washed; 
or,  as  the  majority  of  commentators  prefer,  on  account  of  the 
following  passives,  ye  were  washed.  This  use  of  the  First 
Aorist  Middle  in  a  passive  sense  is  very  unusual,  but  not  un 
authorized;  see  1  Cor.  10,  2.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  of  much 
moment  whether  the  word  be  taken  here  as  active  or  as  pas 
sive,  for  the  same  thing  may  be  expressed  in  either  form.  Men 
are  called  upon  to  wash  away  their  sins,  Acts  22,  16  ;  to  put 
off  the  old  man,  etc.  and  to  put  on  the  new  man,  Eph.  4,  22. 
24 ;  although  the  change  expressed  by  these  terms  is  elsewhere 
referred  to  God.  The  reason  of  this  is,  that  a  human  and  a 
divine  agency  are  combined  in  the  effects  thus  produced.  We 
work  our  own  salvation,  while  God  works  in  us,  Phil.  2,  12.  13. 
With  equal  propriety,  therefore,  Paul  might  say  to  the  Co 
rinthians,  '  Ye  washed  yourselves ; '  or, '  Ye  were  washed.'  To 
wash  means  to  purify,  and  is  frequently  used  in  Scripture  to 
express  moral  or  spiritual  purification.  Is.  1,  16,  "Wash  ye, 
make  you  clean."  Ps.  51,  7,  "  Wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter 
than  snow."  Jer.  4,  14.  In  these  and  many  other  passages 
the  word  expresses  general  purification,  without  exclusive 
reference  to  guilt  or  to  pollution.  There  is  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  taken  in  this  general  sense  here,  and  the  phrase 
be  rendered,  either,  '  Ye  have  purified  yourselves,'  or,  '  Ye 
are  purified.'  The  reference  which  so  many  assume  to  bap 
tism,  does  not  seem  to  be  authorized  by  any  thing  in  the 
context. 

JBut  ye  are  sanctified.  This  clause  is  either  an  amplifica 
tion  of  the  preceding  one,  expressing  one  aspect  or  effect 
of  the  washing  spoken  of,  viz.,  their  holiness ;  or,  it  is  to  be 
understood  of  their  separation  and  consecration.  '  Ye  have  not 
only  been  purified,  but  also  set  apart  as  a  peculiar  people.' 
In  Scripture,  any  thing  is  said  to  be  sanctified  that  is  devoted 
to  the  service  of  God.  Thus,  God  blessed  the  seventh  day 
and  sanctified  it,  Gen.  2,  3.  Moses  sanctified  the  people, 
Ex.  19,  14,  &c.  &G. 

But  ye  are  justified.  As  to  justify  in  Scripture  always 
means  to  pronounce  righteous,  or  to  declare  just  in  the  sight 
of  the  law,  it  must  be  so  understood  here.  The  Corinthians 
had  not  only  been  purified  and  consecrated,  but  also  justified, 
i.  e.  clothed  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  on  that  ac 
count  accepted  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  They  were 


I.   CORINTHIANS  6,  11.  101 

therefore  under  the  highest  possible  obligation  not  to  re 
lapse  into  their  former  state  of  pollution  and  condemnation. 
In  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our 
God.  These  clauses  are  not  to  be  restricted  to  the  preceding 
word,  as  though  the  meaning  were,  4  Ye  have  been  justified 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.' 
They  belong  equally  to  all  three  of  the  preceding  terms.  The 
believers  were  indebted  for  the  great  change  which  they  had 
experienced  ;  for  their  washing,  sanctification,  and  justifica 
tion,  to  Christ  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Spirit  had  ap 
plied  to  them  the  redemption  purchased  by  Christ.  In  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  "  The  name  of  God,"  or  "  of  Christ,' 
is  often  a  periphrase  for  God  or  Christ  himself.  To  call  upon 
the  name  of  God  is  to  call  on  God.  To  baptize  unto  the  name 
of  Christ,  and  to  baptize  unto  Christ,  are  interchanged  as 
synonymous  expressions.  So  here,  to  be  justified  or  sanctified 
in  the  name  of  Christ,  means  simply  by  Christ ;  see  John  20, 
31,  "That  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name." 
Acts  10,  43,  "That  through  his  name  whoso  believeth  in  him 
might  have  remission  of  sins."  Though  these  forms  of  ex 
pression  are  substantially  the  same  as  to  their  import,  yet 
the  "  name  of  God  "  means  not  strictly  God  himself,  but  God 
as  known  and  worshipped.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  called  the  Spi 
rit  of  our  God  ;  that  is,  the  Spirit  of  our  reconciled  God  and 
Father,  by  whom  that  Spirit  is  sent  in  fulfilment  of  the  prom 
ise  of  the  Father  to  the  Son.  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law  in  order  that  we  might  receive  the  prom 
ise  of  the  Spirit,  Gal.  3,  13.  14. 

Abuse  of  the  principle  of  Christian  liberty.    Vs.  12-20. 

The  principle  of  Christian  liberty,  or  the  doctrine  that 
"  all  things  are  lawful,"  is  to  be  limited  in  its  application  to 
things  indifferent ;  first,  by  considerations  of  expediency  ;  and 
secondly,  by  regard  to  our  own  spiritual  freedom,  v.  12.  From 
that  principle  it  is  legitimate  to  infer,  because  of  the  adapta 
tion  of  the  stomach  to  food,  that  all  things  suited  for  food  are 
lawful.  The  one  is  obviously  designed  for  the  other,  during 
the  temporary  condition  of  the  present  life.  But  no  such  ap 
plication  of  the  principle  is  allowable  in  the  case  of  fornica 
tion  ;  because  the  body  is  not  designed  for  that  end,  but 
belongs  to  the  Lord,  with  whom  it  stands  in  an  indissoluble 
connection,  so  that  he  who  raised  him  up  will  also  raise  up  our 


102  I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  12. 

bodies,  vs.  13.  14.  It  is  because  of  this  intimate  relation 
of  our  bodies  to  Christ  as  his  members,  that  fornication  is  so 
great  a  crime,  inconsistent  with  our  union  to  him  as  partakers 
of  his  Spirit,  vs.  15-17.  It  is,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  a  sin  against 
the  body,  destructive  of  its  very  nature,  v.  18.  The  body  is 
a  temple  in  which  the  Spirit  dwells,  but  it  ceases  to  be  such 
if  profaned  by  licentiousness,  v.  19.  Believers  must  remem 
ber  that  they,  even  their  bodies,  are  the  objects  of  redemp 
tion,  having  been  purchased  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  they  should  be  devoted  to  his  glory,  v.  20. 

12.  All  things  are  lawful  unto  me,  but  all  things 
are  not  expedient :  all  things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  I 
will  not  be  brought  under  the  power  of  any. 

Having  in  the  preceding  paragraph  declared  that  the  im 
moral  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  having  given 
special  prominence  to  sins  against  the  seventh  commandment, 
the  Apostle  comes  in  this  paragraph  to  consider  the  ground 
on  which  the  violations  of  that  commandment  were  defended 
or  palliated.  That  ground  was  a  gross  perversion  of  the 
principle  of  Christian  liberty.  Paul  was  accustomed  to  say 
in  reference  to  the  ceremonial  or  positive  enactments  of  the 
Jewish  law,  and  especially  in  reference  to  the  distinction  be 
tween  clean  and  unclean  meats,  "  All  things  are  lawful  to  me." 
As  the  Greeks  and  Romans  generally  regarded  fornication  as 
belonging  to  the  class  of  things  indifferent,  that  is,  not  im 
moral  in  themselves ;  it  is  not  surprising  that  some  of  the 
Corinthians  educated  in  that  belief  should  retain  and  act  on 
the  principle  even  after  their  profession  of  Christianity.  They 
reasoned  from  analogy.  As  it  is  right  to  eat  all  kinds  of  food 
which  are  adapted  to  the  stomach,  so  it  is  right  to  gratify  any 
other  natural  propensity.  Paul's  answer  to  this  argument  is 
twofold.  He  first  shows  that  the  principle  of  Christian  liberty 
in  things  indifferent  is  to  be  restricted  in  its  application ;  and 
secondly,  that  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  cases  men 
tioned.  Food  is  a  thing  indifferent ;  whereas  fornication  is  in 
its  own  nature  a  profanation  and  a  crime. 

The  first  limitation  to  which  the  principle  "  all  things  are 
lawful "  is  subject  in  its  application  to  things  indifferent,  is 
expediency.  All  lawful  things  are  not  expedient.  It  is  both 
absurd  and  wicked  to  do  any  thing  which  is  injurious  to  our 
selves  or  others,  simply  because  it  is  not  in  its  own  nature  tdn- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  12.13.  103 

ful.  This  principle  of  expediency  the  Apostle  enforces  at 
length  in  Rom.  14, 15-23,  and  1  Cor.  8,  7-13,  and  10,  23-33. 
The  second  limitation  of  our  liberty  in  the  use  of  things  indif 
ferent,  is  self-respect.  Because  it  is  lawful  to  eat,  that  is  no 
reason  why  I  should  make  myself  a  slave  to  my  appetite.  "  I 
will  not,"  says  Paul,  "  be  brought  under  the^  power  of  any 
thing."  I  will  not  make  myself  its  slave.  It  is  of  great  im 
portance  to  the  moral  health  of  the  soul  that  it  should  pre 
serve  its  self-control,  and  not  be  in  subjection  to  any  appetite 
or  desire,  however  innocent  that  desire  in  itself  may  be.  This 
is  a  scriptural  rule  which  Christians  often  violate.  They  are 
slaves  to  certain  forms  of  indulgence,  which  they  defend  on 
the  ground  that  they  are  not  in  themselves  wrong  ;  forgetting 
that  it  is  wrong  to  be  in  bondage  to  any  appetite  or  habit. 

13.  Meats  for  the  belly,  and  the  belly  for  meats  : 
but  God  shall  destroy  both  it  and  them.  Now  the 
body  (is)  not  for  fornication,  but  for  the  Lord ;  and 
the  Lord  for  the  body. 

Meats  for  the  belly,  and  the  belly  for  meats.  The  one_  is 
evidently  adapted  and  designed  for  the  other.  It  is  a  legiti 
mate  inference  from  this  constitution  that  it  is  lawful  to  eat, 
and  to  eat  every  thing  adapted  for  food.  But  this  is  a  mere 
temporary  arrangement.  God  icill  destroy  both  it  and  them. 
The  time  shall  come  when  men  shall  no  more  be  sustained  by 
food,  but  shall  be  as  the  angels  of  God.  The  fact  that  the 
present  constitution  of  the  body  is  temporary,  is  a  proof  that 
meats  belong  to  the  class  of  things  indifferent.  They  can 
have  no  influence  on  the  eternal  destiny  of  the  body.  This  is 
not  true  with  regard  to  fornication.  The  body  was  never ^  de 
signed  for  promiscuous  concubinage.  And  such  a  use  of  it  is 
inconsistent  with  the  design  of  its  creation  and  with  its  future 
destiny. 

The  body  is  for  the  Lord ;  and  the  Lord  for  the  body. 
The  one  stands  hi  an  intimate  relation  to  the  other.  The  body 
is  designed  to  be  a  member  of  Christ,  and  the  dwelling-place 
of  his  Spirit.  And  he  so  regards  it ;  redeeming  it  with  his 
blood,  uniting  it  to  himself  as  a  member  of  his  mystical  body, 
making  it  an  instrument  of  righteousness  unto  holiness.  With 
this  design  of  the  body  the  sin  in  question  is  absolutely  in 
compatible,  and  destructive  of  the  relation  which  the  body 
sustains  to  the  Lord. 


104  I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  14.  15.  16. 

14.  And  God  hath  both  raised  up  the  Lord,  and 
will  also  raise  up  us  by  his  own  power. 

The  destiny  of  the  body  being  what  is  stated  in  the  pre 
ceding  verse,  it  is  not  to  perish,  but  is  to  share  in  the  resur 
rection  of  Christ.  "  He  who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead 
shall  also  quicken  our  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth 
in  us,"*  Rom.  8.  11.  This  verse  is  parallel  to  the  second 
clause  of  v.  13.  Of  the  stomach  and  meats,  it  is  said,  God 
will  destroy  both  it  and  them  ;  of  the  Lord  and  the  body  it  is 
said,  As  he  raised  up  the  one,  he  will  also  raise  up  the  other. 
The  cases,  therefore,  are  widely  different.  The  relation  be 
tween  our  organs  of  digestion  and  food  is  temporary  ;  the  re 
lation  between  Christ  and  the  body  is  permanent.  What 
concerns  the  former  relation  is  a  matter  of  indifference  ;  what 
concerns  the  other  touches  the  groundwork  of  our  nature  and 
the  design  for  which  we  were  created.  On  this  destiny  of  the 
body  compare  15,  15.  20.  35-56.  Phil.  3,  21.  Rom.  8,  11.  2 
Cor.  4,  14.  1  Thess.  4,  14. 

15.  16.  Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  the  mem 
bers  of  Christ  ?  shall  I  then  take  the  members  of  Christ, 
and  make  (them)  the  members  of  an  harlot  ?    God  for 
bid.     What  !  know  ye  not  that  he  which  is  joined  to 
an  harlot  is  one  body  ?  for  two,  saith  he,  shall  be  one 
flesh. 

The  design  of  these  verses  is  to  establish  two  points. 
First,  that  the  relation  between  our  bodies  and  Christ  is  of 
the  intimate  and  vital  character  which  had  just  been  stated. 
And  second,  that  the  sin  in  question  was  inconsistent  with 
that  relation,  and  incompatible  with  it. 

Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  the  members  of  Christ  ? 
This  is  a  conceded  and  familiar  point  of  Christian  doctrine, 
one  with  which  they  were  supposed  to  be  acquainted  ;  and 
which  proved  all  that  the  Apostle  had  said  of  the  relation  be- 


*  Instead  of  the  future  ^e-yepc?,  will  raise  up,  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf 
after  A.  D.  read  Qryelpei,  he  raises  up.  Meyer  after  B.  67,  prefers  e'l^ye^e, 
he  raised  up.  According  to  this  last  reading  the  resurrection  of  believers  is 
represented  as  involved  in  that  of  Christ.  As  they  died  when  he  died,  so 
they  rose  when  he  rose.  The  common  text  however  is  the  best  supported, 
and  gives  a  good  sense. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  16.17.  105 

tween  the  body  and  Christ.  Our  bodies  are  the  members  of 
Christ,  because  they  belong  to  him,  being  included  in  the  re 
demption  effected  by  his  blood ;  and  also  because  they  are  so 
united  to  him  as  to  be  partakers  of  his  life.  It  is  one  of  the 
prominent  doctrines  of  the  Bible  that  the  union  between 
Christ  and  his  people  includes  a  community  of  life ;  and  it  is 
clearly  taught  that  this  life  pertains  to  the  body  as  well  as  to 
the  soul,  Rom.  8,  6-11.  Eph.  2,  6.  7.  5,  30.  This  is  the  truth 
which  the  Apostle  recalls  to  the  minds  of  the  Corinthians, 
and  makes  it  the  ground  of  his  indignant  condemnation  of  the 
sin  of  which  he  is  speaking.  That  fornication  is  incompatible 
with  the  relation  of  the  bodies  of  believers  to  Christ,  arises 
out  of  the  peculiar  nature  of  that  sin.  The  parties  to  it  be 
come  partakers  of  a  common  life.  Whether  Ave  can  under 
stand  this  or  not,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Therefore 
as  we  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
life  of  Belial,  so  neither  can  our  bodies  be  the  members  of 
Christ,  and  at  the  same  time  have  a  common  life  with  "  one 
who  is  a  sinner,"  in  the  scriptural  sense  of  that  phrase. 

17.  But  lie  that  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one 
spirit. 

That  is,  has  one  Spirit  with  him.  This  does  not  mean  has 
the  same  disposition  or  state  of  mind,  but  the  same  principle 
of  life,  v.  12,  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  given  with 
out  measure  unto  Christ,  and  from  him  is  communicated  to 
all  his  people  who  are  thereby  brought  into  a  common  life 
with  him,  Rom.  8,  9.  10.  1  Cor.  12,  13.  John  17,  21.  23.  Eph. 
4,  4.  5,  30.  This  being  the  case,  it  imposes  the  highest  con 
ceivable  obligation  not  to  act  inconsistently  with  this  intimate? 
and  exalting  relationship. 

18.  Flee  fornication.     Every  sin  that  a  man  doeth 
is  without  the  body  ;  but  he  that  committeth  fornica 
tion,  sinneth  against  his  own  body. 

This  does  not  teach  that  fornication  is  greater  than  any 
other  sin ;  but  it  does  teach  that  it  is  altogether  peculiar  ip 
its  eifects  upon  the  body  ;  not  so  much  in  its  physical  as  in  its 
moral  and  spiritual  effects.  The  idea  runs  through  the  Bible 
that  there  is  something  mysterious  in  the  commerce  of  the 
yexes,  and  in  the  effects  which  flow  from  it.  Every  other  sin, 
5* 


106  I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  18.  19.  20. 

however  degrading  and  ruinous  to  the  health,  even  drunken 
ness,  is  external  to  the  body,  that  is,  external  to  its  life.  But 
fornication,  involving  as  it  does  a  community  of  life,  is  a  sin 
against  the  body  itself,  because  incompatible,  as  the  Apostle 
had  just  taught,  with  the  design  of  its  creation,  and  with  its 
immortal  destiny. 

19.  What  !  know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  the  tem 
ple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (which  is)  in  you,  which  ye  have 
of  God,  and  ye  are  not  your  own  ? 

There  are  two  things  characteristic  of  a  temple.  First,  it 
is  sacred  as  a  dwelling-place  of  God,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
profaned  with  impunity.  Second,  the  proprietorship  of  a 
temple  is  not  in  man,  but  in  God.  Both  these  things  are  true 
of  the  believer's  body.  It  is  a  temple  because  the  Holy 
Ghost  dwells  in  it  ;  and  because  it  is  not  his  own.  It  belongs 
to  God.  As  it  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  cannot  be  pro 
faned  without  incurring  great  and  peculiar  guilt.  And  as  it 
belongs  in  a  peculiar  sense  to  God,  it  is  not  at  our  own  dis 
posal.  It  can  only  be  used  for  the  purposes  for  which  he  de 
signed  it. 

20.  For  ye  are  bought  with  a  price  :  therefore 
glorify  God  in  your  body,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are 
God's.* 


Ye  are  bought.  The  verb  is  in  the  past  tense,  ^ 
ye  were  bought,  i.  e.  delivered  by  purchase.  The  deliverance 
of  men  from  the  power  and  condemnation  of  sin  was  not 
effected  by  power  or  by  truth,  but  by  a  ransom.  We  were 
justly  held  in  bondage.  We  were  under  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  and  until  that  penalty  was  satisfied,  we  could  not  be  de 
livered.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  our  ransom,  because  it  met 
all  the  demands  of  justice. 

The  proprietorship  in  believers  asserted  at  the  close  of  the 
preceding  verse,  does  not  arise  from  creation  or  preservation, 
but  from  redemption.  '  Ye  are  not  your  own,  for  ye  are 
bought  with  a  price,'  Rom.  6,  17.  Gal.  3,  13.  Eph.  3,  13.  Acts 

*  The  last  clause  of  this  verse  is  omitted  by  .ill  the  modern  editors  from 
Griesbach  down.  They  are  not  found  in  the  MSS.  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  nor 
in  several  of  the  ancient  versions. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  6,  20.  107 

20,  28.  The  price  of  redemption  is  the  blood  of  Christ,  Matt. 
20,  28.  Rom.  3,  24.  Eph.  1,  7.  1  Pet.  1, 18. 19,  and  every  where 
where  the  subject  is  spoken  of  in  Scripture.  Therefore,  i.  e. 
because  redeemed,  and  because  redeemed  at  such  a  price ; 
glorify  God,  i.  e.  honour  him,  and  so  act  as  to  cause  him  to 
be  honoured  by  others.  In  your  body  as  a  temple  consecra 
ted  to  his  worship,  and  employed  only  in  his  service. 

The  following  words,  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  God^s, 
may  have  been  added,  because  the  body  alone  is  not  the  object 
of  redemption,  and  therefore  the  obligation  oi  the  redeemed 
to  be  devoted  to  the  service  of  God  pertains  also  to  the  soul. 
As  however  these  words  are  not  found  in  the  great  majority 
of  the  oldest  manuscripts,  most  modern  editors  omit  them. 


CHAPTER  YIL 

Instructions  relative  to  marriage,  vs.  1-17.  The  Gospel  was  not  designed  to 
interfere  with  the  ordinary  relations  of  men,  vs.  18-24.  Concerning  vir 
gins  and  widows,  25—40. 

Instructions  concerning  marriage  and  other  social  relations. 
Ys.  1-24. 

THE  Corinthians  had  written  to  the  Apostle,  seeking  his  ad 
vice  in  reference  to  the  state  of  things  in  their  church.  It 
appears  from  this  chapter  that  one  of  the  subjects  about  which 
they  were  in  difficulty,  and  respecting  which  they  sought  di 
rection,  was  marriage.  On  this  subject  the  Apostle  tells  them, 
1st.  That,  as  they  were  situated,  marriage  was  inexpedient  to 
them.  But  as  a  general  law  every  man  should  have  his  own 
wife,  and  every  woman  her  own  husband,  vs.  1.  2.  2d.  That 
the  obligation  of  the  parties  to  the  marriage  covenant  is  mu 
tual  ;  the  one  therefore  has  no  right  to  desert  the  other. 
Temporary  separation,  for  the  purpose  :>f  devotion,  is  allow 
able  ;  but  nothing  more,  vs.  3-5.  3d.  What  he  had  said 
either  in  reference  to  marriage  or  temporary  separation,  was 
not  to  be  considered  as  any  thing  more  than  advice.  He 
could  only  tell  them  what,  under  the  circumstances,  was  expe 
dient  ;  each  one  must  act  according  to  the  grace  given  to  him, 


108  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  1. 

vs.  6-9.  4th.  With  regard  to  the  married  the  Lord  had  already 
taught  that  divorce  was  unlawful ;  the  husband  could  not  put 
away  his  wife,  nor  the  wife  her  husband,  vs.  10.  11.  5th.  As 
to  the  case  not  specially  contemplated  in  our  Lord's  instruc 
tions,  where  one  of  the  parties  was  a  Christian  and  the  other 
a  Jew  or  Pagan,  the  Apostle  teaches,  first,  that  if  the  unbe 
lieving  party  is  willing  to  remain  in  the  marriage  relation,  it 
should  not  be  dissolved.  Secondly,  that  if  the  unbeliever  de 
parted,  and  refused  to  continue  in  the  marriage  connection, 
the  marriage  contract  was  thereby  dissolved,  and  the  believing 
party  was  at  liberty,  vs.  12-15.  6th.  Such  separations,  how 
ever,  are,  if  possible,  to  be  avoided,  because  the  gospel  is  a 
gospel  of  peace.  It  was  not  designed  to  break  up  any  of  the 
lawful  relations  of  life.  As  a  general  rule,  therefore,  every 
man  should  continue  in  the  same  condition  in  which  he  was 
called.  If  a  man  was  called  being  circumcised,  his  becoming 
a  Christian  did  not  impose  upon  him  the  obligation  to  become 
uncircumcised  ;  and  if  called  being  uncircumcised,  he  wras  not 
required  to  be  circumcised.  In  like  manner,  if  a  slave  is 
called  to  be  a  Christian,  he  may  remain  a  slave,  because  every 
slave  is  the  Lord's  free  man,  and  every  free  man  is  the  Lord's 
slave.  These  social  distinctions  do  not  affect  our  relation  to 
Christ.  Redemption,  in  raising  all  to  the  relation  of  slaves  to 
Christ,  that  is,  making  them  all  his  property,  has  raised  them 
into  a  sphere  where  all  earthly  distinctions  are  insignificant. 
Therefore,  let  every  man  abide  in  the  relation  wherein  he  was 
called,  vs.  16-24. 

1.  Now  concerning  the  things  whereof  ye  wrote 
unto  me  :  (It  is)  good  for  a  man  not  to  touch  a 
woman. 

It  is  evident  that  there  was  a  diversity  of  opinion  on  the 
subject  of  marriage  among  the  Corinthian  Christians.  Proba 
bly  some  of  them  of  Jewish  origin  thought  it  obligatory, 
while  other  members  of  the  church  thought  it  undesirable,  if 
not  wrong.  Paul  says,  It  is  good  for  a  man  not  to  marry. 
The  word  good  (/coAw)  here  means  expedient,  profitable,  as  it 
does  frequently  elsewhere,  Matt.  17,4.  18,  8.  9.  1  Cor.  9,  15. 
That  the  Apostle  does  not  mean  to  teach  either  that  marriage 
is  morally  an  evil  as  compared  with  celibacy,  or  that  as  a  gen 
eral  rule  it  is  inexpedient,  is  evident.  1.  Because  in  the  fol 
lowing  verse  he  declares  directly  the  reverse.  2.  Because  in 


I.  CORINTHIANS    7,  1.2.3.  109 

v.  26  he  expressly  states  that  "  the  present  distress,"  or  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  trial  and  difficulty  in  which  the 
Christians  of  that  day  were  placed,  was  the  ground  of  his 
advice  on  this  subject.  3.  Because  in  1  Tim.  4,  3,  he  specifies 
"  forbidding  to  marry  "  as  one  of  the  signs  of  the  great  apos 
tasy  which  he  predicted  was  to  occur.  4.  Because  marriage 
is  a  divine  institution,  having  its  foundation  in  the  nature  of 
man,  and  therefore  must  be  a  good.  God  accordingly  de 
clared,  "  It  is  not  good  for  man  to  be  alone,"  i.  e.  to  be  un 
married,  Gen.  2,  18.  Paul  cannot  be  understood  in  a  sense 
which  would  make  him  directly  contradict  the  word  of  God. 
5.  Because  throughout  the  Scriptures  marriage  is  spoken  of 
as  honourable,  Hcb.  13,  4,  and  is  used  to  illustrate  the  relation 
between  God  and  his  people,  and  between  Christ  and  his 
church.  6.  Because  all  experience  teaches  that  it  is,  as  a 
general  rule,  necessary  to  the  full  development  of  the  charac 
ter  of  the  individual,  and  absolutely  essential  to  the  virtue 
and  the  well-being  of  society.  To  depreciate  marriage  would 
be  to  go  contrary  both  to  nature  and  revelation,  and  such  de 
preciation  has  never  failed  to  be  attended  by  the  most  inju 
rious  consequences  to  the  church  and  to  the  world.  If,  there 
fore,  Scripture  is  to  be  interpreted  by  Scripture,  we  must  un 
derstand  the  Apostle  as  intending  to  say :  i  Considering  your 
peculiar  circumstances,  it  is  expedient  for  you  not  to  marry.' 

2.  Nevertheless,  (to  avoid)  fornication,  let  every 
man  have  his  own  wife,  and  let  every  woman  have  her 
own  husband. 

As  a  general  rule,  says  the  Apostle,  let  every  man  have  his 
own  wife,  and  every  woman  her  own  husband.  Whatever 
exceptions  there  may  be  to  this  rule  in  particular  cases,  or  in 
peculiar  conditions  of  society  or  of  the  church,  the  rule  itself 
stands.  There  is  undoubtedly  an  increase  of  worldly  care  and 
anxiety  connected  with  marriage,  and  therefore  it  may  be  expe 
dient  for  those  to  remain  single  to  whom  freedom  from  such 
cares  is  specially  important.  This  however  does  not  alter  the 
great  law  of  God,  that  it  is  not  good  for  man  to  be  alone. 
Celibacy  is  to  be  the  exception,  not  the  rule. 

3-5.  Let  the  husband  render  unto  the  wife  due 


110  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  3.  4.  5.  6.  7. 

benevolence  :  *  and  likewise  also  the  wife  unto  the  hus 
band.  The  wife  hath  not  power  of  her  own  body,  but 
the  husband  :  and  likewise  also  the  husband  hath  not 
power  of  his  own  body,  but  the  wife.  Defraud  ye  not 
one  the  other,  except  (it  be)  with  consent  for  a  time, 
that  ye  may  give  yourselves  to  fasting  and  prayer  ;  and 
come  together  again,  that  Satan  tempt  you  not  for  your 
incontinency. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  New  Testament  of  the 
early  manifestation  of  those  principles  of  asceticism  which 
soon  produced  such  wide-spread  effects,  and  which  to  so  great 
a  degree  modified  the  reigning  spirit  of  the  church.  The  idea 
that  marriage  was  a  less  holy  state  than  celibacy,  naturally 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  married  persons  ought  to  separate  ; 
and  it  soon  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  evidence  of  eminent 
spirituality  when  such  separation  was  final.  The  Apostle 
teaches  that  neither  party  has  the  right  to  separate  from  the 
other  ;  that  no  separation  is  to  be  allowed  which  is  not  with 
mutual  consent,  for  a  limited  time,  for  the  purpose  of  special 
devotion,  and  with  the  definite  intention  of  reunion.  Nothing 
can  be  more  foreign  to  the  mind  of  the  Apostle  than  the 
spirit  which  filled  the  monasteries  and  convents  of  the  medieval 
church. 

6.  7.  But  I  speak  this  by  permission,  (and)  not 
of  commandment.  For  I  would  that  all  men  were 
even  as  I  myself.  But  every  man  hath  his  proper 
gift  of  God,  one  after  this  manner,  and  another  after 
that. 

The  reference  of  the  word  this  in  v.  6,  is  a  matter  of  doubt. 
Some  refer  it  to  the  immediately  preceding  clause,  4  Your 
coming  together  again  I  speak  of  as  permitted,  not  as  com 
manded.'  But  that  clause  is  an  entirely  subordinate  one  ;  and 
the  sense  thus  given  to  the  passage  is  not  consistent  with  the 


*  Instead  of  (xpfiXo/afvrjv  eftvoiav  of  the  received  text,  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G. 
have  the  simpler  reading,  ocjjcixV?  which  most  editors  adopt.  The  same  au 
thorities  omit  the  Avords  TJ;  j/rjo-reia  /cat,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  passage. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  G.  7.  8.  9.  Ill 

context.  It  was  not  a  matter  permitted,  but  commanded 
that  husbands  and  wives  should  live  together.  Others  refer 
it  to  the  whole  of  v.  5.  '  Your  separating  yourselves  only  by 
consent  and  for  a  limited  time  for  the  purpose  of  devotion,  is 
a  matter  of  permission,  not  of  command  ;  you  may  separate 
for  other  purposes  and  for  an  unlimited  time.'  But  to  this 
also  it  is  an  obvious  objection,  that  it  conflicts  with  the  man 
datory  character  of  vs.  3.  4,  and  with  the  meaning  of  v.  5  itself; 
for  that  verse  has  not  the  form  of  a  command.  The  refer 
ence  to  the  5th  verse  may  be  made  under  a  different  aspect. 
4  What  I  have  said  of  your  separating  by  consent  for  a  season, 
is  a  matter  of  permission,  not  of  command.'  But  this  is  not 
consistent  with  the  reason  assigned  in  the  next  verse.  The 
most  natural  reference  is  to  v.  2,  and  to  what  follows.  His 
Baying,  4  Let  every  man  have  his  own  wife  and  every  woman 
her  own  husband,  and  let  them  remember  their  mutual  obli 
gations,'  was  permissive  and  not  a  matter  of  command.  Mar 
riage,  in  other  words,  is  permitted,  not  commanded.  For  I 
would  that  all  were  as  I  am.  The  sense  is  not  materially  dif 
ferent,  if  with  many  editors  we  read  «9e'Aw  Se  instead  of 
#eA.w  ydp.  4  Marriage  is  not  commanded,  but  I  would,' etc. 
The  Apostle  did  not  take  sides  with  the  extreme  Jewish  party, 
who  regarded  marriage  as  obligatory.  He  admitted  the  ex 
pediency  of  all  remaining  single  in  those  times  of  persecuti.m 
to  whom  God  had  given  the  requisite  grace. 

8.  9.  I  say  therefore  to  the  unmarried  and  widows, 
It  is  good  for  them  if  they  abide  even  as  I.  But  if 
they  cannot  contain,  let  them  marry  :  for  it  is  better  to 
marry  than  to  burn. 

This  is  the  application  of  the  principle  laid  down  in  v.  1  to 
the  Corinthians.  i  I  say  to  the  unmarried  and  to  the  widows 
among  you,  it  is  well  not  to  marry.'  The  unmarried  is  not  to 
be  limited  to  widowers,  as  is  commonly  done  on  account  of 
the  word  widows  following,  because  the  word  does  not  admit 
of  that  limitation  ;  and  because  the  word  married  in  the  fol 
lowing  verse  includes  all  classes.  '  To  the  unmarried,  and 
specially  to  widows,  I  say  so  ;  to  the  married  I  say  so.' 

If  these  verses  and  others  of  like  import,  are  to  be  under 
stood  of  men  generally,  and  not  of  men  in  the  peculiar  cir 
cumstances  of  the  early  Christians,  then  it  must  be  admitted 
that  Paul  depreciates  marriage,  and  that  he  represents  it  as 


112  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  9.  10.  11. 

scarcely  having  any  higher  end  than  the  sexual  intercourse  of 
brutes.  This  cannot  be  his  meaning ;  not  only  because  it  is 
contrary  to  Scripture,  but  also  because  Paul  elsewhere,  Eph. 
5,  22-33,  represents  marriage  as  a  most  ennobling  spiritual 
union  ;  which  raises  a  man  out  of  himself  and  makes  him  live 
for  another ;  a  union  so  elevated  and  refining  as  to  render  it 
the  fit  symbol  of  that  bond  between  Christ  and  his  people, 
by  which  they  are  exalted  to  the  full  perfection  of  their  being. 
Marriage,  according  to  Paul,  does  for  man  in  the  sphere  of 
nature,  what  union  with  Christ  does  for  him  in  the  sphere  of 
grace.  The  truth  is  that  the  apostle  writes  to  the  Corin 
thians  as  he  would  do  to  an  army  about  to  enter  on  a  most 
unequal  conflict  in  an  enemy's  country,  and  for  a  protracted 
period.  He  tells  them,  '  This  is  no  time  for  you  to  think  of 
marriage.  You  have  a  right  to  marry.  And  in  general  it  is 
best  that  all  men  should  marry.  But  in  your  circumstances 
marriage  can  only  lead  to  embarrassment  and  increase  of  suf 
fering.'  This  is  the  only  view  of  the  matter  by  which  we  can 
reconcile  the  apostle  with  himself,  or  with  the  truth  of  Scrip 
ture  and  of  fact.  This  must  therefore  be  borne  in  mind  in 
the  interpretation  of  this  whole  chapter. 

10.  11.  And  unto  the  married  I  command,  (yet) 
not  I,  but  the  Lord,  Let  not  the  wife  depart  from 
(her)  husband  :  But  and  if  she  depart,  let  her  remain 
unmarried,  or  be  reconciled  to  (her)  husband :  and  let 
not  the  husband  put  away  (his)  wife. 

The  first  part  of  the  llth  verse  is  a  parenthesis,  the  con 
struction  goes  on  with  the  last  clause.  To  the  married  I 
command,  '  Let  not  the  wife  depart  from  her  husband ;  and 
let  not  the  husband  put  away  his  wife.'  The  distinction  which 
he  here  and  in  v.  12  makes  between  his  commands  and  those 
of  the  Lord,  is  not  a  distinction  between  what  is  inspired  and 
what  is  not ;  nor  is  it  a  distinction  between  what  Paul  taught 
and  what  the  Scriptures  teach  as  Calvin  understands  it ;  but 
Lord  here  evidently  refers  to  Christ ;  and  the  distinction  in 
tended  is  between  what  Christ  had  taught  while  on  earth,  and 
what  Paul  by  his  Spirit  was  inspired  to  teach.  He  tells  the 
Corinthians  that  so  far  as  the  matter  of  divorce  was  concerned, 
they  had  no  need  to  apply  to  him  for  instruction  ;  Christ  had 
already  taught  that  the  marriage  bond  could  not  be  dissolved 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  10.  11.  113 

at  the  option  of  the  parties.  The  wife  had  no  right  to  leave 
her  husband  ;  nor  had  the  husband  the  right  to  repudiate  his 
wife.  But  although  the  marriage  bond  cannot  be  dissolved 
by  any  human  authority,  because  it  is,  in  virtue  of  the  law  of 
God,  a  covenant  for  life  between  one  man  and  one  woman ; 
yet  it  can  be  annulled,  not  rightfully  indeed,  but  still  effect 
ually.  Adultery  annuls  it,  because  it  is  a  breach  of  the  specific 
contract  involved  in  marriage.  And  so  does,  for  the  same 
reason,  wilful  desertion,  as  the  apostle  teaches  in  a  following 
verse.  This  is  the  Protestant  doctrine  concerning  divorce, 
founded  on  the  nature  of  marriage  and  on  the  explicit  instruc 
tions  of  our  Lord,  Matt.  5,  32.  19,  3-9.  Mark  10,  2-12.  Luke 
16,  18.  According  to  this  doctrine  nothing  but  adultery  or 
wilful  desertion  is  a  legitimate  ground  of  divorce,  first,  be 
cause  the  Scriptures  allow  of  no  other  grounds  ;  and  secondly, 
because  incompatibility  of  temper,  cruelty,  disease,  crime,  and 
other  things  of  like  kind,  which  human  laws  often  make  the 
occasion  for  divorce,  are  not  in  their  nature  a  destruction  of 
the  marriage  covenant.  Romanists  teach  that  divorce  a  vin- 
culo  matrimonii,  where  both  parties  were  baptized,  is  never 
allowable.  As  this  rule  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  it  is  found 
injurious  in  practice  ;  and  therefore  it  is  evaded  by  declaring 
marriages  on  frivolous  grounds  void  ab  initio  •  or  by  granting 
separation  without  dissolution  of  the  marriage  tie,  for  reasons 
not  sanctioned  by  Scripture.  The  plain  doctrine  of  the  pas 
sage  before  us,  as  well  as  other  portions  of  the  word  of  God, 
is  that  marriage  is  an  indissoluble  covenant  between  one  man 
and  one  woman  for  life,  admitting  neither  of  polygamy  nor 
of  divorce.  If  the  covenant  be  annulled,  it  can  only  be  by 
the  sinful  act  of  one  of  the  parties. 

But  and  if  she  depart.  The  law  of  Christ  is  that  she 
should  not  depart ;  but  if  in  violation  of  that  law,  or  if  from 
necessity  she  be  obliged  to  depart,  she  has  but  two  things  to 
choose  between, — she  must  remain  unmarried,  or  she  must  be 
reconciled  to  her  husband.  This  is  not  intended  as  an  excep 
tion  to  the  law,  but  it  contemplates  a  case  which  may  occur 
in  despite  of  the  law.  c  In  case  a  woman  has  actually  de 
parted,  with  or  without  just  cause,  then  she  must  remain  un 
married,  or  be  reconciled  to  her  husband.'  There  are  cases 
undoubtedly  which  justify  a  woman  in  leaving  her  husband, 
which  do  not  justify  divorce.  Just  as  there  are  cases  which 
justify  a  child  leaving,  or  being  removed  from,  the  custody 


114  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  12.  13.  14. 

of  a  parent.     The  apostle  teaches,  however,  that  in  such  cases 
of  separation,  the  parties  must  remain  unmarried. 

12.  13.  But  to  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord:  If 
any  brother  hath  a  wife  that  believeth  not,  and  she  be 
pleased  to  dwell  with  him,  let  him  not  put  her  away. 
And  the  woman  which  hath  an  husband  that  believeth 
not,  and  if  he  be  pleased  to  dwell  with  her,  let  her  not 
leave  him. 

But  to  the  rest ;  i.  e.  to  those  married  persons  not  con 
templated  in  the  preceding  class.  The  context  makes  it  clear, 
that  the  distinction  between  the  two  classes  was,  that  in  the 
former,  both  parties  were  Christians ;  and  in  the  latter,  one 
was  a  Christian,  and  the  other  a  Jew  or  heathen.  With  re 
gard  to  these  mixed  marriages  our  Lord  had  given  no  specific 
command ;  therefore  Paul  says,  I  speak,  not  the  Lord.  The 
rule  which  the  apostle  lays  down  is,  that  such  marriages  are 
lawful,  and  therefore  there  is  no  obligation  on  the  Christian 
party  to  dissolve  the  connection.  And  if  he  is  not  bound  to 
do  it,  he  has  no  right  to  do  it.  If,  therefore,  the  unbelieving 
party  consent  (o-weuSo/cet)  to  remain,  the  marriage  may  not  be 
dissolved.  The  Christian  husband  is  forbidden  to  repudiate 
(tt^teVat)  his  heathen  wife ;  and  the  Christian  wife  is  forbid 
den  to  repudiate  her  heathen  husband.  The  same  word  is 
used  in  both  cases,  because,  by  the  laws  both  of  the  Greeks 
and  of  the  Romans,  the  woman  as  well  as  the  man,  had,  on 
legal  grounds,  the  right  of  divorce.  Having  said  that  these 
mixed  marriages  might  be  lawfully  continued,  he  proceeds  to 
remove  the  scruples  which  the  Christian  party  might  enter 
tain  on  that  point.  He  shows  there  is  nothing  unholy  in  such 
a  connection. 

14.  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by 
the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
husband  :  else  were  your  children  unclean ;  but  now 
are  they  holy. 

The  proof  that  such  marriages  may  properly  be  continued, 
is,  that  the  unbelieving  party  is  sanctified  by  the  believing ; 
and  the  proof  that  such  is  the  fact,  is,  that  by  common  con 
sent  their  children  are  holy ;  which  could  not  be,  unless  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  14.  115 

marriages  whence  they  sprang  were  holy ;  or  unless  the  prin 
ciple  that  intimate  communion  with  the  holy  renders  holy, 
were  a  correct  principle. 

The  assertion  of  the  apostle  is,  that  the  unbelieving  hus 
band  or  wife  is  sanctified  in  virtue  of  the  marriage  relation 
with  a  believer.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  word  (dyia- 
Cav),  to  sanctify,  means,  1.  To  cleanse.  2.  To  render  morally 
pure.  3.  To  consecrate,  to  regard  as  sacred,  and  hence,  to 
reverence  or  to  hallow.  Examples  of  the  use  of  the  word  in 
the  third  general  sense  just  mentioned,  are  to  be  found  in 
all  parts  of  Scripture.  Any  person  or  thing  consecrated  to 
God,  or  employed  in  his  service,  is  said  to  be  sanctified.  Thus, 
particular  days  appropriated  to  his  service,  the  temple,  its 
utensils,  the  sacrifices,  the  priests,  the  whole  theocratical  peo 
ple,  are  called  holy.  Persons  or  things  not  thus  consecrated 
are  called  profane,  common,  or  unclean.  To  transfer  any  per 
son  or  thing  from  this  latter  class  to  the  former,  is  to  sanctify 
him  or  it.  "What  God  hath  cleansed  (or  sanctified),  that 
call  not  thou  common,"  Acts  10,  15.  Every  creature  of  God 
is  good,  and  is  to  be  received  with  thanksgiving,  "  For  it  is 
sanctified  by  the  word  of  God  and  prayer,"  1  Tim.  4,  5.  This 
use  of  the  word  is  specially  frequent  in  application  to  persons 
and  communities.  The  Hebrew  people  were  sanctified  (i.  e. 
consecrated),  by  being  selected  from  other  nations  and  de 
voted  to  the  service  of  the  true  God.  They  were,  therefore, 
constantly  called  holy.  All  who  joined  them,  or  who  were 
intimately  connected  with  them,  became  in  the  same  sense, 
holy.  Their  children  were  holy ;  so  were  their  wives.  "  If 
the  first-fruits  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy  ;  and  if  the  root 
be  holy,  so  are  also  the  branches,"  Rom.  11,  16.  That  is,  if 
the  parents  be  holy,  so  are  also  the  children.  Any  child,  the 
circumstances  of  whose  birth  secured  it  a  place  within  the 
pale  of  the  theocracy,  or  commonwealth  of  Israel,  was,  accord 
ing  to  the  constant  usage  of  Scripture,  said  to  be  holy.  In 
none  of  these  cases  does  the  word  express  any  subjective  or 
inward  change.  A  lamb  consecrated  as  a  sacrifice,  and  there 
fore  holy,  did  not  differ  in  its  nature  from  any  other  lamb. 
The ^  priests  or  people,  holy  in  the  sense  of  set  apart  to  the 
service  of  God,  were  in  their  inward  state  the  same  as  other 
men.  Children  born  within  the  theocracy,  and  therefore  holy, 
were  none  the  less  conceived  in  sin,  and  brought  forth  in  ini 
quity.  They  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even  as 
others,  Eph.  2,  3.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  the  unbe- 


116  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  14. 

lieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  wife,  and  the 
unbelieving  wife  by  the  believing  husband,  the  meaning  is, 
not  that  they  are  rendered  inwardly  holy,  nor  that  they  are 
brought  under  a  sanctifying  influence,  but  that  they  were 
sanctified  by  their  intimate  union  with  a  believer,  just  as  the 
temple  sanctified  the  gold  connected  with  it ;  or  the  altar  the 
gift  laid  upon  it,  Matt.  23,  17.  19.  The  sacrifice  in  itself  was 
merely  a  part  of  the  body  of  a  lamb,  laid  upon  the  altar, 
though  its  internal  nature  remained  the  same,  it  became  some 
thing  sacred.  Thus,  the  pagan  husband,  in  virtue  of  his  union 
with  a  Christian  wile,  although  he  remained  a  pagan,  was 
sanctified  ;  he  assumed  a  new  relation  ;  he  Avas  set  apart  to 
the  service  of  God,  as  the  guardian  of  one  of  his  chosen  ones, 
and  as  the  parent  of  children  who,  in  virtue  of  their  believing 
mother,  were  children  of  the  covenant. 

That  this  is  so,  the  apostle  proves  from  the  fact,  that  if  the 
parents  are  holy,  the  children  are  holy;  if  the  parents  are  un 
clean,  the  children  are  unclean.  This  is  saying  literally  what 
is  expressed  figuratively  in  Rom.  11,  16.  "If  the  root  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches."  It  will  be  remembered  that  the 
words  holy  and  unclean,  do  not  in  this  connection  express 
moral  character,  but  are  equivalent  to  sacred^  and  profane. 
Those  within  the  covenant  are  sacred,  those  without  are  pro 
fane,  i.  e.  not  consecrated  to  God.  There  are  two  views  which 
may  be  taken  of  the  apostle's  argument  in  this  verse.  The 
most  natural,  and  hence  the  most  generally  adopted  view  is 
this :  '  The  children  of  these  mixed  marriages  are  universally 
recognised  as  holy,  that  is,  as  belonging  to  the  church.  If 
this  be  correct,  which  no  one  disputes,  the  marriages  them 
selves  must  be  consistent  with  the  laws  of  God.  The  unbe 
lieving  must  be  sanctified  by  the  believing  partner.  Other 
wise,  your  children  would  be  unclean,  i.  e.  born  out  of  the 
pale  of  the  church.'  To  this  it  is  indeed  objected  by  several 
modern  commentators,  that  it  takes  for  granted  that  the 
Corinthians  had  no  scruples  about  the  church-standing  of  the 
children  of  these  mixed  marriages.  But  this,  it  is  said,  is  very 
improbable  so  soon  after  the  establishment  of  the  church, 
when  cases  of  the  kind  must  have  been  comparatively  few. 
The  principle  in  question,  however,  was  not  a  new  one,  to  be 
then  first  determined  by  Christian  usage.  It  was,  at  least,  as 
old  as  the  Jewish  economy ;  and  familiar  wherever  Jewish 
laws  and  the  facts  of  the  Jewish  history,  were  known.  ^  Paul 
circumcised  Timothy,  whose  father  was  a  Greek,  while  his 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  14.  117 

mother  was  a  Jewess,  because  he  knew  that  his  countrymen 
regarded  circumcision  in  such  cases  as  obligatory,  Acts  16, 
1-3.  The  apostle  constantly  assumes  that  his  readers  were 
familiar  with  the  principles  and  facts  of  the  Old  Testament 
economy.  Comp.  10,  1-13. 

The  other  view  of  the  argument  is  this  :  '  If,  as  you  ad 
mit,  the  children  of  believers  be  holy,  why  should  not  the 
husband  or  the  wife  of  a  believer  be  holy.  The  conjugal  re 
lation  is  as  intimate  as  the  parental.  If  the  one  relation  se 
cures  this  sacredness,  so  must  the  other.  If  the  husband  be 
not  sanctified  by  his  believing  Avife,  children  are  not  sanctified 
by  believing  parents.'  This,  however,  supposes  a  change  in 
the  persons  addressed.  Paul  is  speaking  to  persons  imrolved 
in  these  mixed  marriages.  Your  children  naturally  means 
the  children  of  you  who  have  unbelieving  husbands  or  wives. 
Whereas  this  explanation  supposes  your  to  refer  to  Christians 
generally.  In  either  way,  however,  this  passage  recognises  as 
universally  conceded  the  great  scriptural  principle,  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  holy.  They  are  holy  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  the  Jews  were  holy.  They  are  included  in  the 
church,  and  have  a  right  to  be  so  regarded.  The  child  of  a 
Jewish  parent  had  a  right  to  circumcision,  and  to  all  the  priv 
ileges  of  the  theocracy.  So  the  child  of  a  Christian  parent 
has  a  right  to  baptism  and  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church, 
so  long  as  he  is  represented  by  his  parent ;  that  is,  until  he 
arrives  at  the  period  of  life  when  he  is  entitled  and  bound  to 
act  for  himself.  Then  his  relation  to  the  church  depends 
upon  his  own  act.  The  church  is  the  same  in  all  ages.  And 
it  is  most  instructive  to  observe  how  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  quietly  take  for  granted  that  the  great  principles 
which  underlie  the  old  dispensation,  are  still  in  force  under 
the  new.  The  children  of  Jews  were  treated  as  Jews  ;  and  the 
children  of  Christians,  Paul  assumes  as  a  thing  no  one  would 
dispute,  are  to  be  treated  as  Christians.  Some  modern  Ger 
man  writers  find  in  this  passage  a  proof  that  infant  baptism 
was  unknown  in  the  apostolic  church.  They  say  that  Paul 
could  not  attribute  the  holiness  of  children  to  their  parentage, 
if  they  were  baptized — because  their  consecration  would  then 
be  due  to  that  rite,  and  not  to  their  descent.  This  is  strange 
reasoning.  The  truth  is,  that  they  were  baptized  not  to  make 
them  holy,  but  because  they  were  holy.  The  Jewish  child 
was  circumcised  because  he  was  a  Jew,  and  not  to  make  him 
one.  The  Rabbins  say  :  Peregrina  si  proselyta  fuerit  et  cum 


118  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  14.15. 

ea  filia  ejus  —  si  concepta  fuerit  et  nata  in  sanctitate,  cst  ut 
filia  Israelita  per  omnia.  See  WETSTEIN  in  loc.  To  be  born 
in  holiness  (i.  e.  within  the  church)  was  necessary  in  order  to 
the  child  being  regarded  as  an  Israelite.  So  Christian  chil 
dren  are  not  made  holy  by  baptism,  but  they  are  baptized  be 
cause  they  are  holy. 

15.  Bat  if  the  unbelieving  depart,  let  him  depart. 
A  brother  or  a  sister  is  not  under  bondage  in  such 
(cases) :  but  God  hath  called  us  to  peace. 

The  command  in  the  preceding  verse  was  founded  on  the 
assumption,  that  the  unbelieving  party  consented  to  remain 
in  the  marriage  relation.  If  the  unbeliever  refused  thus  to 
remain,  the  believer  was  then  free.  The  believer  was  not  to 
repudiate  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife ;  but  if  the  unbe 
liever  broke  up  the  marriage,  the  Christian  partner  was  there 
by  liberated  from  the  contract.  This  is  the  interpretation 
which  Protestants  have  almost  universally  given  to  this  verse. 
It  is  a  passage  of  great  importance,  because  it  is  the  founda 
tion  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  that  wilful  desertion  is  a  legiti 
mate  ground  of  divorce.  And  such  is  certainly  the  natural 
sense  of  the  passage.  The  question  before  the  apostle  was, 
'  What  is  to  be  done  in  the  case  of  these  mixed  marriages  ? ' 
His  answer  is,  '  Let  not  the  believer  put  away  the  unbeliever, 
for  Christ  has  forbidden  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  any 
cause  except  that  of  adultery,  Matt.  5,  32.  But  if  the  unbe 
liever  breaks  up  the  marriage,  the  believer  is  no  longer  bound.' 
There  is  no  conflict  here  between  Christ's  command  and  Paul's 
instructions.  Both  say,  a  man  cannot  put  away  his  wife  (nor 
of  course  a  wife  her  husband)  on  account  of  difference  of  re 
ligion,  or  for  any  other  reason  but  the  one  above  specified. 
The  apostle  only  adds  that  if  the  believing  party  be,  without 
just  cause,  put  away,  he  or  she  is  free. 

A  brother  or  sister  is  not  in  bondage  (ov  SeSou'Aomu,  equiva 
lent  to  ov  SeSercu,  v.  39),  i.  e.  is  not  bound /  if  the  unbeliever 
consent  to  remain,  the  believer  is  bound ;  if  the  unbeliever 
will  not  consent,  the  believer  is  not  bound.  In  the  one  case 
the  marriage  contract  binds  him ;  in  the  other  case  it  does 
not  bind  him.  This  seems  to  be  the  simple  meaning  of  the 
passage.  Others  understand  the  apostle  as  saying  that  the 
believer  is  not  bound  to  continue  the  marriage — that  is,  is 
under  no  obligation  to  live  with  a  partner  who  is  unwilling  to 


I.  CORHSTTHIAKS  V,  15.16.  119 

live  with  him.  But  the  one  part  of  the  verse  should  be 
allowed  to  explain  the  other.  An  obligation  which  is  said  to 
exist  in  one  case,  Paul  denies  exists  in  another.  If  the  un 
believer  is  willing  to  remain,  the  believer  is  bound  by  the 
marriage  contract ;  but  if  she  be  unwilling,  he  is  not  bound. 
But  God  hath  catted  us  in  peace  (lv  dprjvr),  i.  e.  wore  elval 
eV  ciprm).  Peace  is  the  state  in  which  the  called  should  live. 
The  gospel  was  not  designed  to  break  up  families  or  to  sepa 
rate  husbands  and  wives.  Therefore,  though  the  believer  is 
free  if  deserted  by  his  unbelieving  partner,  the  separation 
should  be  avoided  if  possible.  Let  them  live  together  if  they 
can ;  and  let  all  proper  means  be  taken  to  bring  the  unbeliev 
ing  party  to  a  sense  of  duty,  and  to  induce  him  to  fulfil  the 
marriage  covenant.  This  is  the  common  view  of  the  meanino- 
of  this  clause.  Others  understand  it  in  a  directly  opposite 
sense,  viz.,  as  assigning  a  reason  why  the  separation  should 
take  place,  or  at  least  why  the  attempt  to  detain  an  unwillino- 
husband  or  wife  should  not  be  pressed  too  far.  <  As  God  hath 
called  us  to  live  in  peace,  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  our 
vocation  to  keep  up  these  ill-assorted  connections.'  This 
however,  is  contrary  to  the  whole  animus  of  the  apostle.  He 
is  evidently  labouring  throughout  these  verses  to  prevent  all 
unnecessary  disruptions  of  social  ties. 

16.  For  what  knowest  them,  O  wife,  whether  thou 
shalt  save  (thy)  husband  ?  or  how  knowest  thou,  O 
man,  whether  thou  shalt  save  (thy)  wife  ? 

The  meaning  of  this  verse  depends  on  the  interpretation 
given  to  the  preceding.  If  Paul  there  said,  c  Your  call  to  live 
in  peace  forbids  the  continuance  of  the  marriage  relation  with 
an  unwilling  husband  or  wife ; '  then  this  verse  must  give  a 
farther  reason  why  (supposing  one  of  the  parties  to  be  unwil 
ling)  such  marriages  should  not  be  continued.  That  reason 
is,  the  utter  uncertainty  of  any  spiritual  good  flowino-  from 
them.  'Why  persist  in  keeping  up  the  connection,  when,  O 
wile,  you  know  not  whether  you  can  save  your  husband  ?  '  If 
however,  the  common  interpretation  of  v.  15  be  adopted  then 
the  meaning  is,  'Live  in  peace  if  possible,  for  how  knowest 
thou  whether  thou  shalt  not  save  thy  husband  ? '  &c.  We 
have  here,  therefore,  an  additional  reason  for  avoiding  separa 
tion  in  the  case  supposed.  Compare  2  Sam.  12,  22.  Joel  2 
14.  Jonah  3,  9,  in  the  Septuagint,  where  the  phrase  TIS  olSev  «'' 


120  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  16.17. 

who  knows  if,  is  used  to  express  hope.     So  here  the  idea  is, 
'  Who  knows,  O  wife,  but  that  thou  shalt  save  thy  husband  ? ' 

17.  But  as  God  hath  distributed  to  every  man,  as 
the  Lord  hath  called  every  one,*  so  let  him  walk.  And 
so  ordain  I  in  all  churches. 

Paul  was  not  only  averse  to  breaking  up  the  conjugal  re 
lation,  but  it  was  a  general  ordinance  of  his  that  men  should 
remain  in  the  same  social  position  after  becoming  Christians, 
which  they  had  occupied  before.  We  can  very  imperfectly 
appreciate  the  effect  produced  by  the  first  promulgation  of 
the  gospel.  The  signs  and  wonders,  and  diverse  miracles  and 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  which  it  was  attended  ;  the  perfect 
equality  of  men  which  it  announced ;  the  glorious  promises 
which  it  contained ;  the  insignificancy  and  ephemeral  charac 
ter  which  it  ascribed  to  every  thing  earthly ;  and  the  certain 
ty  of  the  second  coming  of  Christ  which  it  predicted,  produced 
a  ferment  in  the  minds  of  men  such  as  was  never  experienced 
either  before  or  since.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that 
men  were  in  many  instances  disposed  to  break  loose  from 
their  social  ties  ;  wives  to  forsake  their  unbelieving  husbands, 
or  husbands  their  wives  ;  slaves  to  renounce  the  authority  of 
their  masters,  or  subjects  the  dominion  of  their  sovereigns. 
This  was  an  evil  which  called  for  repression.  Paul  endea 
voured  to  convince  his  readers  that  their  relation  to  Christ 
was  compatible  with  any  social  relation  or  position.  It  mat 
tered  not  whether  they  were  circumcised  or  uncircumcised, 
bond  or  free,  married  to  a  Christian  or  married  to  a  Gentile, 
their  fellowship  with  Christ  remained  the  same.  Their  con 
version  to  Christianity  involved,  therefore,  no  necessity  of 
breaking  asunder  their  social  ties.  The  gospel  was  not  a 
revolutionary,  disorganizing  element ;  but  one  which  was  de 
signed  to  eliminate  what  is  evil,  and  to  exalt  and  purify  what 
is  in  itself  indifferent. 

As  God  (or  the  Lord)  hath  distributed  to  every  man,  i.  e. 
whatever  lot  in  life  God  has  assigned  any  man.  As  the  Lord 
(or  God)  hath  called  every  man,  i.  e.  whatever  condition  or 
station  a  man  occupied  when  called  by  the  word  and  Spirit  of 
God,  let  him  remain  in  it.  His  conversion,  at  least,  does  not 


with 


*  The  MSS.,  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  read  6  Kvpios  with  tyepure,  and  6 

K    .    '._-\  —  .. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  17.18.  121 

render  any  change  necessary.  The  principal  difficulty  with 
regard  to  this  verse  does  not  appear  in  our  version.  The 
words  (et  /zrj),  rendered  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse, 
mean  except  or  unless,  and  this  meaning  they  have  so  uniform 
ly  that  many  commentators  insist  that  they  must  be  so  ren 
dered  here.  Some  of  them  say  the  meaning  is,  '  What  do  you 
know  except  this,  that  every  man  should  remain  in  the  condi 
tion  in  which  he  was  called  ? '  But  in  this  way  the  verse  does 
not  cohere  with  the  preceding  one.  '  How  knowest  thou,  O 
man,  whether  thou  shalt  save  thy  wife  ?  except  let  every  man 
remain  as  he  was  called.'  This  every  one  feels  to  be  intolera 
bly  harsh.  It  would  be  better  with  others,  to  supply  some 
thing  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse.  '  What  is  to  be  done 
except?  '  Do  not  favour  the  separation  of  husbands  and  wives 
on  account  of  difference  in  religion.  God  has  called  us  to 
peace.  The  wife  may  save  her  husband,  and  the  husband  his 
wife.  What  then  is  to  be  done,  except  to  remain  in  the  con 
dition  in  which  you  were  called.'  Others  get  over  the  diffi 
culty  by  separating  the  et  and  /x,rj  and  connecting  the  latter 
with  a  verb  understood.  '  How  knowest  thou,  O  man,  but 
that  thou  shalt  save  thy  wife  ?  If  not,  i.  e.  if  thou  shalt  not 
save  her,  still  the  principle  holds  good  that  every  man  should 
remain  in  the  state  in  which  he  was  called.'  This  gives  a  good 
sense,  but  it  would  require  et  Se  (JLTJ.  As  it  is  undeniable  that 
the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  especially  in  the  use  of  the 
particles,  is  in  a  measure  conformed  to  the  usage  of  the  He 
brew,  a  freer  use  of  these  particles  is  allowable,  when  the 
context  requires  it,  than  is  common  in  classic  writers.  Most 
commentators  therefore  render  the  words  in  question  as  our 
translators  have  done.  And  so  I  ordain  in  all  the  churches. 
That  is,  this  is  the  rule  or  order  which  I  lay  down  in  all 
churches.  The  apostles,  in  virtue  of  their  plenary  inspiration, 
were  authorized  not  only  to  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
but  also  to  regulate  all  matters  relating  to  practice. 

18.  Is  any  man  called  being  circumcised?  let  him 
not  become  uncircumcised.  Is  any  called  in  uncir- 
cumcision  ?  let  him  not  be  circumcised. 

This  is  the  first  application  of  the  principle  just  laid  down. 
Let  every  man  remain  as  he  is,  circumcised  or  uncircumcised. 
The  Jews  were  wont,  when  they  abandoned  their  religion,  to 
endeavour  to  obliterate  the  mark  of  circumcision.  The  Juda- 


122  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  18.19.20. 

izers  were  disposed  to  insist  on  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentile 
converts.  Both  were  wrong.  Paul's  command  is  that  they 
should  remain  as  they  were.  Instead  of  the  interrogative  form 
adopted  in  our  version,  the  preferable  translation  is,  "  One  was 
called  (tK\ri9rj)  being  circumcised  ;  let  him  not  become  uncir- 
cumcised.  Another  was  called  in  uncircumcision  ;  let  him  not 
be  circumcised."  To  call,  throughout  the  doctrinal  portions 
of  the  New  Testament,  is  to  convert,  to  call  effectually. 

19.  Circumcision  is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is 
nothing,  but  the  keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God. 

This  is  the  reason  why  they  should  be  treated  with  indif 
ference.  They  are  nothing /  they  have  no  influence  either 
favourable  or  unfavourable  on  our  relation  to  God.  No  man 
is  either  the  better  or  worse  for  being  either  circumcised  or 
uncircumcised.  The  gospel  has  raised  men  above  all  such 
things.  The  question  to  be  asked  is  not  whether  a  man  is 
circumcised  or  uncircumcised  ;  but  whether  he  keeps  the  com 
mandments  of  God.  The  things,  therefore,  about  which  the 
Christian  ought  to  be  solicitous,  are  not  such  external  matters, 
which  have  no  influence  on  his  spiritual  state,  but  conformity 
in  heart  and  life  to  the  revealed  will  of  God.  Rom.  2,  25.  29. 
Gal.  5,6.  "In  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any 
thing  (is  of  any  worth),  nor  uncircumcision  ;  but  faith  which 
worketh  by  love."  '  Faith  that  worketh  by  love,'  and  '  keep 
ing  the  commandments  of  God,'  are  the  same  thing.  They 
express  the  idea  of  holiness  of  heart  and  life  under  different 
aspects. 

20.  Let  every  man  abide  in  the  same  calling  where 
in  he  was  called, 

This  is  a  repetition  of  the  sentiment  contained  in  v.  17, 
which  is  again  repeated  in  v.  24.  The  word  calling  (icAijo-is), 
always  in  the  New  Testament  means  the  call  of  God,  that  effi 
cacious  operation  of  his  Spirit  by  which  men  are  brought  into 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  It  is  hard,  however,  to  make  it  bear 
that  sense  here.  The  meaning  is  plain  enough.  'As  he  was 
called,  so  let  him  remain.'  But  this  is  the  idea  detached 
from  the  form  in  which  it  is  here  expressed.  The  great  ma 
jority  of  commentators  agree  in  giving  the  word  in  this  place 
the  sense  of  vocation,  as  we  use  that  word  when  we  speak  of 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  20.21.  123 

the  vocation  of  a  mechanic  or  of  a  farmer.  In  whatever  sta 
tion  or  condition  a  man  is  called,  therein  let  him  remain. 
This  of  course  is  not  intended  to  prohibit  a  man's  endeavour 
ing  to  better  his  condition.  If  he  be  a  labourer  when  con 
verted,  he  is  not  required  always  to  remain  a  labourer.  The 
meaning  of  the  apostle  evidently  is,  that  no  man  should  desire 
to  change  his  status  in  life  simply  because  he  had  become  a 
Christian ;  as  though  he  could  not  be  a  Christian  and  yet  re 
main  as  he  was.  The  gospel  is  just  as  well  suited  to  men  in 
one  vocation  as  in  another,  and  its  blessings  can  be  enjoyed 
in  all  their  fulness  equally  in  any  condition  of  life.  This  is  il 
lustrated  by  an  extreme  case  in  the  following  verse. 

21.  Artthou  called  (being)  a  servant?  care  not  for 
it :  but  if  thou  mayest  be  made  free,  use  (it)  rather. 

Here  again  the  general  sense  is  plain.  A  man's  being  a 
slave,  so  far  as  his  being  a  Christian  is  concerned,  is  a  mat 
ter  of  no  account.  It  need  give  him  no  concern.  The  inter 
pretation  of  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  is  somewhat  doubtful. 
According  to  most  of  the  Fathers  the  meaning  is,  '  Care  not 
for  being  a  slave ;  but  even  if  you  can  be  free,  prefer  to  remain 
as  you  are.'  This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  several  of  the 
modern  German  commentators.  It  is  urged  in  its  favour  that 
the  original  demands  it.  Paul  does  not  say  but  if  (dAA'  ct), 
but,  but  if  even  (dXX'  ei  KCU).  '  Care  not  for  your  slavery ;  but 
if  even  you  can  be  free,  use  it  rather ; '  or,  '  although  (d  KO.L) 
thou  canst  be  free,  <fcc.'  The  English  version  overlooks  the 
Kat.  Besides,  it  is  said  the  common  interpretation  is  in  con 
flict  with  the  context.  The  very  thing  the  apostle  has  in  view 
is  to  urge  his  readers  to  remain  in  the  condition  in  which  they 
were  called.  '  Art  thou  called  being  circumcised,  remain  cir 
cumcised  ;  art  thou  called  being  free,  remain  free ;  art  thou 
called  being  a  slave,  remain  a  slave.'  There  is  not  much  force 
in  this  argument ;  because,  as  before  remarked,  Paul's  object 
is  not  to  exhort  men  not  to  improve  their  condition,  but  sim 
ply  not  to  allow  their  social  relations  to  disturb  them;  or 
imagine  that  their  becoming  Christians  rendered  it  necessary 
to  change  those  relations.  "He  could,  with  perfect  consistency 
with  the  context,  say  to  the  slave,  '  Let  not  your  being  a  slave 
give  you  any  concern ;  but  if  you  can  become  free,  choose 
freedom  rather  than  slavery.'  A  third  argument  urged  in  fa 
vour  of  the  interpretation  above  mentioned,  is  that  it  is  more 


124  I.  CORINTHIAN'S  7,  21.22. 

consistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  apostle,  with  his  exalted  views 
of  the  equality  of  all  men  in  Christ,  and  with  his  expectation 
that  all  earthly  distinctions  would  soon  be  swept  away.  The 
advice  to  slaves  to  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  be 
come  free,  it  is  said,  would  be  trivial  in  the  estimation  of  one 
who  believed  that  those  slaves  might,  at  any  moment,  be  ex 
alted  to  be  kings  and  priests  to  God.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  this  interpretation  is  plausible.  It  is  not,  however,  de 
manded  either  by  the  language  used,  or  by  the  context.  The 
conjunction  (/cat),  overlooked  in  our  version,  maybe  rendered 
also.  '  Wast  thou  called  being  a  slave  ?  care  not  for  it ;  but 
if  also  (i.  e.  in  addition  to  your  being  called)  thou  canst  become 
free,  use  it  rather.'  Luther,  Calvin,  Beza,  and  the  great  body 
of  commentators  from  their  day  to  this,  understand  the  apos 
tle  to  say  that  liberty  was  to  be  chosen  if  the  opportunity  to 
become  free  were  oifered.  That  the  context  does  not  conflict 
with  this  view  of  the  passage,  which  our  translators  evidently 
adopted,  has  already  been  shown. 

22.  For  he  that  is  called  in  the  Lord,  (being)  a 
servant,  is  the  Lord's  freeman :  likewise  also  he  that  is 
called,  (being)  free,  is  Christ's  servant. 

The  connection  is  with  the  first,  not  with  the  last  clause  of 
v.  2 1 .  '  Care  not  for  your  bondage,  /or,'  &c.  He  that  is 
called  in  the  Lord ;  or,  as  the  words  stand,  l  The  slave  called 
in  the  Lord.'  That  is,  the  converted  slave.  Is  the  Lord's 
freeman,  i.  e.  is  one  whom  the  Lord  has  redeemed.  The  pos 
session  of  that  liberty  with  which  Christ  makes  his  people 
free,  is  so  great  a  blessing,  that  all  other  things,  even  the  con 
dition  of  slavery,  are  comparatively  of  no  account.  Paul,  in 
Rom.  8,  18-23,  says  that  the  afflictions  of  this  life  are  not 
worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons 
of  God,  towards  which  the  whole  creation,  now  subject  to 
vanity,  looks  with  longing  expectation.  A  man  need  care 
little  about  his  external  condition  in  this  world,  who  is  freed 
from  the  bondage  of  Satan,  the  curse  of  the  law,  the  dominion 
of  sin,  and  who  is  made  a  child  and  heir  of  God ;  that  is,  who 
is  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  and  made  a  partaker  of 
his  exaltation  and  kingdom.  Likewise  also  he  that  is  catted, 
being  free,  is  the  Lord's  servant  (i.  e.  slave,  8o9Aos).  The  dis 
tinction  between  master  and  slave  is  obliterated.  To  be  the 
Lord's  freeman,  and  to  be  the  Lord's  slave,  are  the  same  thing. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  22.23.24.  125 

The  Lord's  freeman  is  one  whom  the  Lord  has  redeemed  from 
Satan,  and  made  his  own ;  and  the  Lord's  slave  is  also  one 
whom  Christ  has  purchased  for  himself.  So  that  master  and 
slave  stand  on  the  same  level  before  Christ.  Comp.  Eph.  6,  9. 

23.  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price ;   be  not  ye  the 
servants  of  men. 

Ye  (i.  e.  all  Christians,  bond  and  free,)  were  bought  with  a 
price.  That  is,  purchased  by  Christ  with  his  most  precious 
blood,  1  Pet.  1,  18.  19.  Ye  belong  to  him ;  ye  are  his  slaves, 
and  should  therefore  act  accordingly ;  and  not  be  the  slaves 
of  men.  The  slave  of  one  master  cannot  be  the  slave  of 
another.  One  who  is  redeemed  by  Christ,  who  feels  that  he 
belongs  to  him,  that  his  will  is  the  supreme  rule  of  action,  and 
who  performs  all  his  duties,  not  as  a  man-pleaser,  but  as  doing 
service  as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  to  men,  Eph.  6,  6.  7,  is  in 
wardly  free,  whatever  his  external  relations  may  be.  This 
verse  is  a  proper  sequel  to  the  preceding  one.  The  apostle 
had  exhorted  all  believers,  even  slaves,  to  be  contented  with 
their  external  condition.  As  a  motive  to  such  contentment, 
he  had  said  they  were  all  equally  the  subjects  of  redemption. 
They  all  belonged  to  Christ.  To  him  their  allegiance  was  due. 
They,  therefore,  whether  bond  or  free,  should  act  in  obedi 
ence  to  him,  and  not  in  obedience  to  men.  There  is  a  very 
important  sense  in  which  even  slaves  are  forbidden  to  be  the 
servants  of  men — that  is,  they  are  not  to  be  men-pleasers,  but 
in  all  things  should  act  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  God. 

24.  Brethren,  let  every  man,  wherein  he  is  called, 
therein  abide  with  God. 

That  is,  as  all  these  external  relations  are  of  no  account, 
and  especially,  as  a  man  may  be  a  slave  and  yet  a  freeman,  let 
every  man  be  contented  with  the  station  which  God  has 
assigned  him  in  this  life.  With  God  (napa  $eu>)  ;  near  him, 
perpetually  mindful  of  his  presence  and  favour.  In  other 
words,  in  communion  with  God.  This  would  secure  their 
contentment  and  happiness.  They  would  find  his  favour  to 
be  life,  and  his  loving-kindness  to  be  better  than  life.  To  live 
near  to  God  is,  therefore,  the  apostle's  prescription  both  for 
peace  and  holiness. 


120  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  25. 

Of  Virgins  and  Widows.    Vs.  25-40. 

In  this  portion  of  the  chapter  the  apostle  treats  principally 
of  the  marriage  of  virgins — including,  however,  the  young  of 
both  sexes.  (lOn  this  subject  he  says  he  was  not  authorized  to 
speak  with  authority,  but  simply  to  advise,  v.  25.  His  advice 
was,  on  account  of  the  impending  troubles,  that  they  should 
not  marry,  vs.  26.  27.  It  was  not  wrong  to  marry,  but  it 
would  expose  them  to  greater  suffering,  v.  28.  Besides,  they 
should  consider  the  transitory  nature  of  all  earthly  ties.  The 
fashion  of  the  world  was  passing  away,  vs.  29-31.  Still  fur 
ther,  a  single  life  was  freer  from  worldly  cares.  The  unmar 
ried  could  consecrate  themselves  without  distraction  to  the 
service  of  the  Lord,  vs.  32-35.  To  parents  he  says,  that,  if 
circumstances  render  it  desirable,  they  might  without  hesita 
tion  give  their  daughters  in  marriage,  v.  36.  But  if  they  were 
free  to  act  on  their  own  judgment,  his  advice  was  to  keep 
them  unmarried,  vs.  37.  38.  Marriage  can  only  be  dissolved 
by  death.  After  the  death  of  her  husband,  a  woman  is  at 
liberty  to  marry  again ;  but  she  should  intermarry  only  with 
a  Christian ;  and  in  Paul's  judgment,  her.  happiness  would  be 
promoted  by  remaining  single,  vs.  39.  40.1 

25.  Now  concerning  virgins  I  have  no  command 
ment  of  the  Lord :  yet  I  give  my  judgment,  as  one 
that  hath  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful. 

Now  (8e,  but,)  serves  to  resume  the  connection  broken  off 
by  the  preceding  digression.  'But  to  resume  my  subject,' 
which  in  this  chapter  is  marriage.  Concerning  virgins,  (-Trap- 
$eVoi.)  The  word  properly  means  maidens,  though  as  an  ad 
jective  it  is  used  of  both  sexes,  Rev.  14,  4.  I  have  no  com 
mandment  of  the  Lord.  Thatis^  neither  Christ  himself,  nor 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  by  whom  Paul  was  guided,  had  commis 
sioned  him  to  do  any  thing  more  than  to  counsel  thgSe  per 
sons.  He  was  inspired,  or  led  by  the  Spirit,  in  this  matter, 
nbTTtd  command,  but  to  advise.  His  advice,  however,  was 
worthy  of  great  deference.  It  was  not  merely  the  counsel  of 
a  wise  and  experienced  man ;  but  of  one  who  had  obtained 
mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful^  i.  e.  worthy  of  confidence, 
one  who  could  be  trusted.  This  is  a  sense  the  word  (TTIO-TOS) 
often  has,  as  in  the  expressions,  "  faithful  saying,"  "  faithful 
witness."  Paul  felt  himself  indebted  to  the  mercy  of  Christ 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  25.26.  127 

for  those  inward  graces  and  qualities  which  entitled  him  to 
the  confidence  of  his  readers.  He  recognised  Christ  as  the 
giver  of  those  gifts,  and  himself  as  undeserving  of  them.  Had 
he  been  left  to  himself,  instead  of  being  the  wise,  disinter 
ested,  and  faithful  counsellor  of  Christians,  he  would  have 
been  a  blaspheming  persecutor.  Philosophy  would  teach  us 
that  moral  excellence  must  be  self-acquired.  The  Bible  teach 
es  us  that  it  is  the  gift  of  God ;  and  being  the  gift  of  Christ, 
Christ  must  be  God.  As  such,  Paul  blessed  him  for  having 
been  so  merciful  to  him  as  to  convert  him,  and  bring  him  to 
the  knowledge  and  obedience  of  the  truth. 

26.  I  suppose  therefore  that  this  is  good  for  the 
present  distress,  (I  say,)  that  (it  is)  good  for  a  man  so 
to  be. 

I  suppose  therefore,  (VO/M'£W  ow,)  i.  e.  I  think  then.  The 
being  so,  i.  e.  as  you  are,  unmarried,  is  good,  in  the  sense  of 
expedient.  There  is  a  slight  grammatical  inaccuracy,  or 
change  of  construction,  in  this  verse.  '  I  think  then  this  to 
be  expedient  on  account  of  the  coming  necessity ;  that  is,  I 
think  that  it  is  expedient  for  a  man  so  to  be.'  Paul  here  ex 
pressly  states  the  ground  of  his  opinion  that  it  was  inexpedi 
ent  for  his  readers  to  marry.  It  was  on  account  of  the  present 
distress,  (eveorwcrav  avdyKyv,)  the  distress  standing  near,  whether 
actually  present,  or  impending,  depends  on  the  context,  Luke 
21,  23.  2  Cor.  6,  4.  10,  12.  1  Thess.  3,  7.  In  the  present  case 
it  was  probably  not  so  much  the  troubles  in  which  Christians 
were  then  actually  involved,  as  those  which  the  apostle  saw  to 
be  hanging  over  them,  which  he  refers  to.  The  Scriptures 
clearly  predicted  that  the  coming  of  Christ  was  to  be  preceded 
and  attended  by  great  commotions  and  calamities.  These 
predictions  had  reference  both  to  his  first  and  second  advent. 
The  insight  even  of  inspired  men  into  the  future  was  very  im 
perfect.  The  ancient  prophets  searched  diligently  into  the 
meaning  of  their  own  predictions,  1  Pet.  1,  10-12,  and  the 
apostles  knew  little  of  the  times  and  seasons,  Acts  1,  7.  They 
knew  that  great  calamities  were  to  come  on  the  earth,  but  how 
or  when  it  was  not  given  to  them  clearly  to  see.  The  awful 
desolation  which  was  soon  to  fall  upon  Jerusalem  and  on  the 
whole  Jewish  race,  and  which  could  not  but  involve  more  or 
less  the  Christians  also,  and  the  inevitable  struggles  and  per 
secutions  which,  according  to  our  Lord's  predictions,  his  fol- 


128  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  26.  27.  28. 

lowers  were  to  encounter,  were  surely  enough  to  create  a  deep 
impression  on  the  apostle's  mind,  and  to  make  him  solicitous 
to  prepare  his  brethren  for  the  coming  storm.  It  is  not  neces 
sary^  therefore,  to  assume,  as  is  so  often  done,  that  the  apostle 
anticipated  the  second  advent  of  Christ  during  that  genera 
tion,  and  that  he  refers  to  the  calamities  which  were  to  pre 
cede  that  event.  Such  expectation  would  not,  indeed,  be  in 
compatible  with  his  inspiration.  It  was  revealed  to  him  that 
Christ  was  to  come  the  second  time  ;  and  that  he  was  to  come 
as  a^thief  in  the  night.  He  might,  therefore,  naturally  look 
for  it  at  any  time.  We  know,  however,  that  in  the  case  of 
Paul  at  least,  it  was  revealed,  that  the  second  advent  was  not 
to  occur  before  the  national  conversion  of  the  Jews,  Rom.  11, 
25  ;  or  before  the  great  apostasy  and  rise  of  the  man  of  sin, 
2  Thess.  2,  2.  3.  Still,  he  knew  not  when  those  events  might 
occur,  and  therefore  he  knew  not  when  Christ  would  come. 
It  was  not,  however,  to  the  calamities  which  are  to  precede 
the  second  advent,  to  which  Paul  here  refers,  but  rather  to 
those  which  it  was  predicted  should  attend  the  introduction 
of  the  gospel. 

27.  Art  thou  bound  unto  a  wife  ?  seek  not  to  be 
loosed.     Art  thou  loosed  from  a  wife  ?  seek  not  a  wife. 

f  Marriage,  in  the  present  circumstances  of  the  church,  will 
prove  a  burden.  Although  this  fact  will  not  justify  the  disso 
lution  of  any  marriage,  it  should  dissuade  Christians  from  get 
ting  married. 

28.  But  and  if  thou  many,  thou  hast  not  sinned; 
and  if  a  virgin  many,  she  hath  not  sinned.     Neverthe 
less  such  shall  have  trouble  in  the  flesh  :  but  I  spare 
you. 

If  thou  marry,  or,  c  If  thou  shalt  have  married,  thou  didst 
not  sin  ;  and  if  a  virgin  shall  have  married,  she  did  not  sin.' 
not  sinful.     It  is  not  because  there 


isjmy  thingwrong~m  gettinglnarriecL  that  Paul  ciissuades 
from  it,  bu£tecause  such  shall  have  1/rouUe  (#Au/ag,  suffering') 
~  is,  external,  as  opposed  to  inward  or  spirit- 
reference  IS  tO  thfl  affll^tirms  whio.h  must. 


injtimes  of  trouble.    The  word  flesh  is  often 
used  in  tftis  sense  for  what  is  external!    John  6,  63.  Eph.  0,  5. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  29-31.  129 

2  Cor.  11,  18.     But  I  spare  you.    The  design  of  my  dissuad-  I 
\  ing  you  from  marriage  is  to  spare  you  these  sufferings. 

29-31.  But  this  I  say,  brethren,  the  time  (is) 
short ;  it  remaineth,  that  both  they  that  have  wives  be 
as  though  they  had  none ;  and  they  that  weep,  as 
though  they  wept  not;  and  they  that  rejoice,  as  though 
they  rejoiced  not ;  and  they  that  buy,  as  though  they 
possessed  not ;  and  they  that  use  this  world,  as  not 
abusing  (it)  :  for  the  fashion  of  this  world  passeth 
away. 

I  '  This  is  another  reason  why  you  should  not  marry.  You 
J  will  soon  have  to  leave  your  wives.  It  is  nothing  relating  to 
lyour  permanent  and  eternal  interests  which  I  urged  you  to 
(forego,  but  only  something  which  pertains  to  the  fleeting  rela 
tions  of  this  changing  world.' 

But  this  I  say,  i.  e.  This  I  would  have  you  bear  in  mind, 
as  giving  force  to  my  advice.  The,  time,  i.  e.  the  appointed 
time  (/«upos,  not  xpoVos)  is  short  (crwecrraA/xeVos).  The  verb 
properly  means  to  roll  or  wind  up,  Acts  5,6,  then  to  contract  or 
shorten.  '  The  time  is  shortened.'  Comp.  Matt.  24,  22.  Mark 
13,  20,  where  the  idea  is  the  same,  though  the  word  used  is 
different.  This  interpretation  is  on  the  whole  preferable  to 
another  almost  equally  common.  4  The  time  is  calamitous  ; ' 
for  this  use  of  the  word,  however,  no  certain  authority  can  be 
given.  The  words  rendered,  it  remaineth,  properly  belong  to 
the  preceding  clause.  The  meaning  is  not, '  It  remaineth  that? 
but  '  The  time  henceforth  (  TO  \onr6v}  is  short.'  That  is,  the 
allotted  time  is  brief.  That  does  not  depend  on  This  I  say, 
as  though  the  sense  were  '  I  say  that  / '  but  on  what  imme 
diately  precedes.  '  The  time  is  shortened  in  order  that,  &c.' 
It  is  the  design  of  God  in  allowing  us  but  a  brief  period  in  this 
world,  or  in  this  state,  that  we  should  set  lightly  by  all  earthly 
things ;  that  those  who  have  wives  should  be  as  though  they 
had  them  not,  and  those  that  weep,  as  though  they  wept  not ; 
those  who  rejoice,  as  though  they  rejoiced  not ;  those  who 
buy,  as  though  they  possessed  not ;  those  using  the  world,  as 
though  they  used  it  not.'  We  should  set  our  affections  on 
things  above,  and  not  on  the  things  on  the  earth.  Col.  3,  2. 
The  clause  rendered  '  they  that  use  this  world  as  not  abusing 

6* 


130          I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  31.  32.  3J.  34. 

it,'  is  properly  so  translated,  as  Karaxpao/Aai  means  to  use  over 
much.  The  only  reason  for  preferring  the  other  translation  is 
the  analogy  of  the  other  passages.  Either  version  is  consistent 
with  the  usage  of  the  word.  For  the  fashion  of  this  world 
passeth  away,  i.  e.  is  in  the  act  of  passing  away.  The  fashion 
(cr^/xa),  the  external  form,  the  essence  as  it  appears,  the 
present  state  of  things.  The  figure  is  derived  from  the  scenes 
of  a  theatre,  in  the  actual  process  of  change.  The  fact  that 
the  present  condition  of  the  world  is  not  to  last  long,  and  that 
our  participation  in  its  joys  and  sorrows  is  to  be  so  short 
lived,  is  the  reason  which  the  apostle  urges  why  we  should 
not  be  wedded  to  earthly  things. 

32.  33.  But  I  would  have  you  without  carefulness. 
He  that  is  unmarried  careth  for  the  things  that  belong 
to  the  Lord,  how  he  may  please  the  Lord :  but  he  that 
is  married  careth  for  the  things  that  are  of  the  world, 
how  he  may  please  (his)  wife. 

This  is  the  third  reason  why  Paul  wished  the  early  Chris 
tians  to  remain  unmarried.  The  first  was,  the  increased  suf 
fering  marriage  would  probably  bring  with  it.  The  second 
was,  the  transitory  nature  of  all  earthly  things.  And  the 
third  is,  the  comparative  freedom  from  care  connected  with 
a  single  life.  The  unmarried  man  may  devote  himself  to  the 
things  of  the  Lord,  i.  e.  to  the  service  of  Christ.  Having  no 
family  to  provide  for  and  to  protect  in  times  of  distress  and 
persecution,  he  is  less  encumbered  with  worldly  cares.  Christ, 
and  not  his  wife  is,  or  may  be,  the  great  object  of  his  solicitude. 

34.  There  is  difference  (also)  between  a  wife  and  a 
virgin.  The  unmarried  woman  careth  for  the  things 
of  the  Lord,  that  she  may  be  holy  both  in  body  and  in 
spirit :  but  she  that  is  married  careth  for  the  things  of 
the  world,  how  she  may  please  (her)  husband. 

What  is  true  of  men  is  true  also  of  women.  There  is  a 
difference  between  a  wife  and  a  virgin.  The  difference  is,  that 
the  virgin  may  devote  her  whole  time  to  the  Lord ;  the  wife 
must  be  involved  in  worldly  cares  for  the  sake  of  her  husband. 
The  Greek  literally  rendered  is,  Divided  is  a  wife  and  a  vir 
gin.  Their  interests  are  diverse.  The  one  has  a  husband  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  34.35.  131 

divide  her  attention  ;  the  other  is  free  from  such  distraction. 
The  reading  adopted  by  Lachmann  and  Riickert  modifies  the 
sense  of  this  passage,  and  relieves  some  of  its  difficulties.  They 
connect  /xe/Aepto-rat  with  the  preceding  sentence,  '  He  that  is 
married  careth  for  the  things  of  the  world,  how  he  may  please 
his  wife,  and  is  divided,  i.  e.  distracted  between  the  service  of 
the  Lord  and  his  social  duties.'  In  the  following  clause  they 
read  '  fj  ywrj  fj  aya/xos  /cat  f]  Trap^eVos  rj  aya^ios,  the  unmarried 
woman  and  the  virgin  care  for  the  things  of  the  Lord.'  Jerome 
pronounces  in  favour  of  this  reading,  which  he  says  he  found 
in  his  Greek  MSS.,  and  it  is  also  adopted  by  Calvin.  The 
common  text,  however,  is  generally  preferred.  The  virgin 
cares  for  the  things  of  the  Lord,  that  she  may  be  holy  both  in 
body  and  in  spirit.  That  is,  that  she  be  consecrated  as  to 
body  and  spirit.  The  word  holy  has  the  sense  here  that  it 
has  in  v.  14,  and  so  often  elsewhere.  It  is  not  in  purity  and 
spirituality  that  the  virgin  is  said  to  have  the  advantage  of  the 
wife  ;  but  in  freedom  from  distracting  cares.  In  v.  14,  even 
the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife  is  said  to  be  sanctified  or  made 
holy.  And  it  is  in  the  same  general  sense  of  consecration,  that 
holiness  is  here  predicated  of  virgins  as  distinguished  from 
wives.  It  would  be  to  impugn  a  divine  ordinance,  and  to  con 
tradict  all  experience,  to  say  that  married  women,  because 
married,  are  less  holy  than  the  unmarried.  Paul  advances  no 
such  idea. 


35.  And  this  I  speak  for  your  own  profit  ;  not  that 
I  may  cast  a  snare  upon  you,  but  for  that  which  is 
comely,  and  that  ye  may  attend  upon  the  Lord  without 
distraction. 

The  object  of  the  apostle  was  their  advantage.  In  urging 
them  to  remain  single,  he  had  no  intention  "  to  cast  a  snare 
upon  them,"  i.  e.  to  restrain  their  liberty.  Or  the  meaning  of 
the  figure  is,  '  I  do  not  wish  to  raise  scruples,  to  make  you 
afraid  to  move  lest  you  fall  into  a  snare.'  The  former  explana 
tion,  however,  is  preferable.  An  animal  ensnared  was  con 
fined  ;  it  had  no  liberty  of  action.  Paul  did  not  wish  to  bring 
his  readers  into  that  state.  They  were  perfectly  free  to  do  as 
they  pleased.  There  was  no  moral  obligation  upon  .them  to 
jro~Btiperior  ho^ip£ga  in  cc|j^5ip(y.  Pie  was  only 


saying  what  in  his  judgment  would  15e  most  to  their  ad  van- 


132  I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  35.36. 

tage  under  existing  circumstances.  That  is,  as  he  expresses 
it,  his  design  was  to  promote  what  was  becoming  and  proper 
in  them ;  that  is,  to  promote  assiduous,  undistracted  devotion 
to  the  Lord.  In  other  words,  that  they  might  be  free  from 
any  thing  to  divert  their  minds  from  the  service  of  the  Lord. 
The  literal  translation  is,  '  For  devotion  to  the  Lord  without 
distraction.'  Every  where  the  apostle  is  careful  to  show  that 
celibacy  was  preferred  merely  on  the  grounds  of  expediency, 
and  not  on  the  ground  of  its  being  a  higher  state  of  virtue. 
All  assumption  or  imposition  of  vows  of  celibacy,  is  a  restric 
tion  of  the  liberty  which  the  apostle  was  solicitous  not  to  in 
vade.  Such  vows  are  a  snare ;  and  those  who  take  them  are 
like  an  animal  in  a  net. 

36.  But  if  any  man  think  that  he  behaveth  himself 
uncomely  toward  his  virgin,  if  she  pass  the  flower  of 
(her)  age,  and  need  so  require,  let  him  do  what  he  will, 
he  sinneth  not :  let  them  marry. 

This  and  the  following  verse  are  addressed  to  fathers,  for 
with  them,  according  to  the  usage  both  of  Jews  and  Greeks, 
rested  the  disposal  of  the  daughters  of  the  family.  Though 
the  apostle  regarded  marriage  at  that  time  as  inexpedient,  he 
tells  lathers  that  they  were  perfectly  free  to  exercise  their  own 
judgment  in  giving  their  daughters  in  marriage,  or  keeping 
them  single.  If  any  man  (i.  e.  any  father)  thinketh  he  behaveth 
himself  uncomely  towards  his  virgin.  The  word  (do-x^oi/ew) 
may  be  taken  either  actively  or  passively.  The  meaning  may 
therefore  be,  '  If  any  father  think  he  exposes  himself  to  dis 
grace  by  keeping  his  daughter  unmarried  ; '  as  it  was  consid 
ered  a  reproach  to  be  unmarried.  Or,  '  If  he  think  that  he 
exposes  her  to  disgrace.'  The  latter  interpretation  is  to  be 
preferred  because  agreeable  to  the  common  use  of  the  word, 
and  because  it  is  required  by  the  preposition  (CTTI),  which  in 
dicates  the  object  of  the  action  of  the  verb.  If  she  pass  the 
flower  of  her  age.  This  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  case 
on  which  Paul  gives  his  advice.  The  daughter  must  be  of 
full  age  ;  and  secondly,  there  must  be  some  reason  why  in  her 
case  marriage  is  necessary :  if  need  so  require.  The  daugh 
ter's  happiness  may  be  involved.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  father  may  do  what  he  will  /  he  does  not  sin  in  giving  his 
daughter  in  marriage,  and,  therefore,  let  them  (i.  e.  the  parties) 


I.  CORINTHIANS   7,  36.37.38.39.  133 

marry.  In  all  cases  of  indifference,  where  no  moral  principle 
is  concerned,  our  conduct  must  be  regulated  by  a  wise  con 
sideration  of  circumstances.  But  where  a  thing  is  in  its  own 
nature  either  right  or  wrong,  there  is  no  room  for  discretion. 

37.  Nevertheless  he  that  standeth  steadfast  in  his 
heart,  having  no  necessity,  but  hath  power  over  his  own 
will,  and  hath  so  decreed  in  his  heart  that  he  will  keep 
his  virgin,  doeth  well. 

He  that  standeth  steadfast  in  his  heart,  i.  e.  whose  judg 
ment  is  settled  and  firm,  being  fully  persuaded  of  the  inexpe 
diency  of  his  daughter's  marrying.  Having  no  necessity,  i.  e. 
being  controlled  by  no  external  necessity ;  nothing,  in  other 
words,  rendering  it  necessary  for  him  to  act  contrary  to  his 
own  judgment.  But  hath  power  over  his  own  will,  i.  e.  is 
able  to  act  as  he  pleases,  or  according  to  his  judgment.  And 
hath  so  decreed  in  his  heart,  i.  e.  has  fully  made  up  his  mind, 
to  keep  his  virgin,  i.  e.  to  keep  his  daughter  unmarried ;  he 
doeth  well. 

38.  So  then  he  that  giveth  (her)  in  marriage  doeth 
well;  but  he  that  giveth  (her)  not  in  marriage  doeth 
better. 

X    As  there  is  no  sin  in  marriage,  and  no  superior  virtue  in  N. 
/  celibacy,  it  is  a  mere  question  of  expediency,  to  be  determined     \ 
|  by  the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case.     All  Paul  says      (^ 
I  is  that,  other  tilings  being  equal,  it  is  better  (i.  e.  wiser)  not  to      / 

\  marry  than  to  marry ;  on  account,  as  he  before  said,  of  im-  / 

pending  calamities. 

39.  The  wife  is  bound  by  the  law  as  long  as  her 
husband  liveth ;  but  if  her  husband  be  dead,  she  is  at 
liberty  to  be  married  to  whom  she  will ;  only  in  the 
Lord. 

The  uniform  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  is,  that  mar 
riage  is  a  contract  for  life,  between  one  man  and  one  woman, 
indissoluble  by  the  will  of  the  parties  or  by  any  human  au 
thority  ;  but  that  the  death  of  either  party  leaves  the  survivor 
free  to  contract  another  marriage.  See  Rom.  7,  1-3.  Such 


134  I.  CORINTHIANS  V,  39.40. 

being  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  no  civil  or  ecclesiastical  body 
can  rightfully  establish  a  different  rule,  or  prescribe  another 
or  (as  they  pretend)  a  higher  rule  of  morality.  All  attempts 
to  be  better  than  the  Bible,  on  this  or  any  other  subject,  only 
render  men  worse.  Paul,  therefore,  teaches  that  a  woman  on 
the  death  of  her  husband,  is  free  to  marry  whom  she  will — 
only  in  the  Lord.  There  are  two  ways  in  which  this  restric 
tion  may  be  understood.  First,  that  she  should  marry  only 
one  who  is  in  the  Lord,  i.  e.  a  Christian.  Though  mixed  mar 
riages  between  Christians  and  Jews  or  Gentiles  should  not, 
when  formed,  be  broken  up  (as  taught  above,  vs.  12-15) ;  yet 
no  such  marriage  ought  to  be  contracted.  Or,  secondly,  the 
phrase  may  be  taken  adverbially  as  expressing  manner,  as  be 
comes  those  who  are  in  the  Lord,  i.  e.  in  a  Christian  manner. 
She  is  to  marry  as  becomes  a  Christian.  This  interpretation 
includes  the  other.  Compare  Rom.  16,  2.  22.  Eph.  6, 1,  &c. 
The  former  explanation  is  the  more  simple  and  natural. 

40.  But  she  is  happier  if  she  so  abide,  after  my 
judgment :  and  I  think  also  that  I  have  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

Happier,  freer  from  exposure  to  suffering,  v.  28  ;  and  freer 
from  worldly  care,  v.  32.  After  my  judgment ;  it  was  an 
opinion  founded,  as  he  says,  on  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  time,  and  not  intended  to  bind  the  conscience  or  to  inter 
fere  with  the  liberty  of  others,  v.  35.  Nevertheless,  it  was 
the  opinion  of  a  holy  and  inspired  man,  and  therefore  entitled 
to  the  greatest  deference.  To  have  the  Spirit,  means  to  be 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  whether  as  a  Christian  or  as 
an  apostle,  depends  on  the  context.  The  meaning  here  clear 
ly  is,  that  the  apostle  was  led  by  the  Spirit  to  give  the  advice 
in  question  ;  so  that  his  advice  is,  so  to  speak,  the  advice  of 
the  Spirit.  But  is  not  the  advice  of  the  Spirit  obligatory  ? 
Certainly,  if  he  meant  it  to  be  so  ;  but  if  he  meant  simply  to 
jay  down  a  general  rule  of  expediency,  and  to  leave  every  one 
to  judge  of  its  application  to  his  or  her  peculiar  case,  then  it 
leaves  all  concerned  free.  It  would  cease  to  be  advice  if  men 
could  not  act  contrary  to  it,  without  irreverence  or  disobe 
dience.  I  think  (So/cw)  I  have,  is  only,  agreeably  to  Greek 
usage,  an  urbane  way  of  saying  I  ham,  comp.  Gal.  2,  6. 
1  Cor.  12,  22.  Paul  was  in  no  doubt  of  his  being  an  organ  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  I  also,  i.  e.  I  as  well  as  others.  This  is 


I.  CORINTHIANS  7,  40.  135 

generally  considered  as  referring  (somewhat  ironically)  to  the 
false  pretenders  in  Corinth.  '  I  think  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God 
as  well  as  those  among  you  who  make  such  high  pretensions.' 


CHAPTEE  VIII. 

Eating  of  sacrifices  offered  to  idols  is  not  in  itself  wrong,  vs.  1-7.     But  it 
should  be  avoided  if  it  gave  offence,  vs.  8-13. 

On  eating  of  sacrifices.     Vs.  1-13. 

THE  second  subject  on  which  the  Corinthians  had  requested 
the  advice  of  the  apostle  was  the  lawfulness  of  eating  of  the 
sacrifices  offered  to  idols.  To  the  discussion  of  that  question 
in  its  different  aspects  the  eighth,  ninth  and  tenth  chapters  of 
this  epistle  are  principally  devoted.  At  the  council  of  Jerusa 
lem  it  was  decided  by  the  apostles,  elders  and  brethren,  that 
the  Gentile  converts  should  abstain  "  from  meat  offered  to 
idols,  from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  forni 
cation,"  Acts  15,  29 ;  and  this  decree  was  referred  to  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  its  author,  v.  28.  Yet  Paul,  though  present  in 
that  council,  not  only  does  not  refer  to  it,  but  goes  directly 
against  it.  That  decree  forbade  the  eating  of  meat  offered  to 
idols  ;  Paul,  in  ch.  10,  tells  the  Corinthians  that  when  exposed 
for  sale  in  the  market,  or  found  on  private  tables,  they  might 
eat  it  without  scruple.  These  facts  do  not  prove  any  discre 
pancy  between  the  apostles  gathered  in  Jerusalem  and  Paul ; 
nor  that  the  decisions  of  that  council  were  not  obligatory  on 
the  church.  They  only  serve  to  explain  the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  those  decisions.  They  show,  1.  That  there  was 
no  permanent  moral  ground  for  the  prohibition  of  meat  offered 
to  idols.  2.  That  the  ground  of  the  prohibition  being  expe 
diency,  it  was  of  necessity  temporary  and  limited.  It  had 
reference  to  Christians  in  the  midst  of  those  to  whom  eating 
such  meat  was  an  abomination.  It,  therefore,  ceased  to  be 
binding  whenever  and  wherever  the  grounds  of  the  prohibi 
tion  did  not  exist.  It  is  analogous  to  Paul's  condemnation  of 
Women  appearing  in  church  without  a  veil.  The  decisions  of 


136  I.  CORINTHIANS  8. 

that  council,  therefore,  were  no  barrier  to  Paul's  discussing 
the  question  on  its  merits.  In  this  chapter  the  subject  is 
viewed  in  two  aspects  ;  first,  considered  in  itself;  and  second 
ly,  in  its  bearing  on  the  weaker  or  less  enlightened  class  of 
Christians.  Most  of  the  questions  which  disturbed  the  early 
church  had  their  origin  in  the  conflicting  prepossessions  and 
prejudices  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts  ;  or  at  least,  of 
the  more  and  less  enlightened  of  the  Christian  converts.  For 
it  is  probable  that  many  of  those  who  had  been  educated  as 
heathen  belonged  to  the  class  of  weaker  brethren.  As  a 
body,  however,  the  Gentiles  were  disposed  to  latitudinarian- 
ism ;  and  the  Jews  to  superstitious  scrupulousness.  So  far  as 
general  principles  were  concerned,  Paul  sided  with  the  Gentile 
party.  Their  views  about  meats  and  drinks,  and  holy  days, 
and  ceremonies  were  derived  from  the  apostle  himself,  and 
were  therefore  approved  by  him.  But  the  spirit  and  practice 
of  this  party  he  severely  condemns.  Thus,  in  the  present  in 
stance,  he  admits  that  an  idol  is  nothing ;  that  a  sacrifice  is 
nothing ;  that  all  enlightened  Christians  know  this  ;  that,  con 
sequently,  eating  of  the  heathen  sacrifices  was  a  matter  of  in- 
diiference,  it  made  a  man  neither  better  nor  worse  ;  and  yet 
eating  of  them  might  be,  and  in  their  case  it  was,  sinful ;  be 
cause  injurious  to  their  weaker  brethren.  He  begins  the 
chapter  with  the  admission,  therefore,  that  all  enlightened 
Christians  have  knowledge.  He  reminds  them,  however,  that 
there  is  something  higher  than  knowledge ;  that  knowledge 
without  love  is,  after  all,  only  another  form  of  ignorance. 
The  main  thing  to  be  known  is  not  apprehended,  vs.  1-3.  He 
admits,  however,  that  Christians  know  that  the  gods  of  the 
heathen  are  vanities  and  lies,  that  there  is  but  one  only,  the 
living  and  true  God,  v.  4.  For  although  the  heathen  acknow 
ledge  a  whole  hierarchy  of  deities,  celestial  and  terrestrial, 
Christians  acknowledge  but  one  God  and  one  Mediator,  v.  6. 
All  this  is  admitted.  It  is,  however,  nevertheless  true  that 
many  Christians,  though  they  know  that  there  is  but  one 
God,  yet  are  not  persuaded  that  the  heathen  deities  are 
nothing,  and  therefore  they  stand  in  awe  of  them,  and  could 
not  help  believing  that  eating  of  sacrifices  offered  to  idols  was 
an  act  of  worship,  or  in  some  way  defiling,  v.  7.  The  apostle 
also  admits  the  second  principle  relied  upon  by  the  Gentile 
converts,  viz.,  that  meat  does  not  commend  us  to  God,  that  it 
can  have  no  influence  on  our  spiritual  state,  v.  8.  It  is  not 
enough,  however,  that  an  act  should  be  in  its  own  nature  in- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  1.  137 

different  to  justify  us  in  performing  it.  If  our  doing  what  is 
in  itself  innocent  be  the  occasion  of  leading  others  into  sin,  it 
is  for  that  reason  sinful  for  us,  v.  9.  If,  therefore,  a  weak 
brother  should  be  led,  against  the  convictions  of  his  own  mind, 
to  join  his  stronger  brethren  in  eating  such  sacrifices,  he  would 
bring  himself  into  condemnation.  It  was,  therefore,  a  breach 
of  charity  and  a  sin  against  Christ,  to  eat  of  the  heathen 
sacrifices  under  circumstances  which  emboldened  others^  to 
sin,  vs.  10-12.  The  apostle  avows  his  own  determination 
never  to  eat  meat  at  all,  if  by  so  doing  he  should  cause  his 
brethren  to  sin,  v.  13. 

1.  Now  as  touching  things  offered  unto  idols,  we 
know  that  we  ah1  have  knowledge.  Knowledge  puffeth 
up,  but  charity  edifieth. 

The  idolatry  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  pervaded  their 
whole  life.  Their  social  intercourse,  their  feasts,  the  adminis 
tration  of  justice,  the  public  amusements,  the  offices  and  hon 
ours  of  the  government,  were  all  more  or  less  connected  with 
religious  services.  Christians,  therefore,  were  constantly  ex 
posed  to  the  danger  of  being  involved  in  some  idolatrous 
homage  without  even  knowing  it.  This  gave  rise  to  nume 
rous  and  perplexing  questions  of  conscience,  which  were  often 
decided  differently  by  different  classes  of  Christians.  One  of 
the  most  perplexing  of  these  questions  related  to  the  use  of 
things  offered  to  idols.  Some  had  no  scruples  on  this  point ; 
others  thought  it  sinful  to  eat  of  such  sacrifices  under  any  cir 
cumstances.  This  was  a  question  which  it  was  necessary  to 
have  authoritatively  settled,  because  it  came  up  every  day  for 
decision.  The  victims  offered  in  sacrifices  were  usually  divided 
into  three  parts.  One  was  consumed  on  the  altar,  another 
was  given  to  the  priest,  and  a  third  was  retained  by  the  offerer. 
The  portion  given  to  the  priest,  if  not  needed  for  himself,  was 
sent  to  the  market.  The  portion  retained  by  the  offerer  was 
either  eaten  at  his  own  table,  or  within  the  precincts  of  the 
temple.  The  Christians,  therefore,  if  they  bought  meat  in  the 
market,  or  if  invited  to  the  houses  of  their  heathen  friends,  or 
to  the  festivals  in  the  temples,  were  liable  to  have  these  sacri 
fices  placed  before  them.  The  two  grounds  on  which  the 
more  liberal  of  them  defended  the  use  of  such  meat,  were, 
first,  that  the  idols  were  nothing,  they  were  not  really  gods  ; 
and  secondly,  that  meat  cannot  commend  us  to  God.  Both 


138  I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  1. 

these  principles  are  true,  and  therefore  the  apostle  concedes 
them,  but  at  the  same  time  corrects  the  practical  inferences 
which  the  Gentile  converts  drew  from  them.  There  were 
really  two  distinct  questions  relating  to  this  subject.  The 
first  was,  whether  eating  such  sacrifices  was  lawful  ?  the  other, 
whether  it  was  lawful  to  eat  them  within  the  precincts  of  the 
temple?  The  apostle  does  not  distinguish  these  questions 
until  the  tenth  chapter.  Here  he  speaks  of  the  subject  only 
in  its  general  aspects. 

Now  as  touching  things  offered  unto  idols.  Literally,  But, 
concerning  idol-sacrifices.  The  particle  (8e,)  but,  serves  to  in 
troduce  a  new  topic.  As  the  fourth  verse  begins,  concerning 
therefore  the  eating  things  offered  to  idols,  the  intervening 
words  are  a  logical  parenthesis.  This  parenthesis  may  begin 
immediately  after  the  word  idols,  or  after  the  word  know 
ledge,  so  that  the  first  two  clauses  of  the  verse  are  connected. 
"  But  concerning  idol-sacrifices,  we  know  we  all  have  know 
ledge."  This  claim  to  knowledge,  though  a  claim  of  the 
Corinthians,  and  the  ground  on  which  they  defended  the  eat 
ing  of  those  sacrifices,  is  not  put  forward  as  a  point  to  be  con 
tested.  The  apostle  adopts  it,  or  makes  it  his  own,  and  then 
proceeds  to  qualify  and  limit  it,  precisely  as  he  did  with  the 
aphorism,  "  All  things  are  lawful,"  in  6,  12;  see  also  10,  23. 
The  subject  of  the  two  verbs  know  and  have  in  this  verse  are 
not  necessarily  the  same.  The  sense  may  be :  '  I  know  we  all 
have  knowledge.'  The  knowledge  intended  is  determined  by 
the  context.  It  is  the  knowledge  concerning  idols.  In  this 
verse  Paul  says,  "  We  all  have  knowledge  ; "  but  in  v.  7,  he 
says,  "  This  knowledge  is  not  in  all."  This  apparent  contra 
diction  may  be  explained  by  supposing,  what  is  perfectly 
natural,  that  the  apostle  has  reference  to  different  classes  of 
persons  in  the  two  passages.  In  v.  1  he  may  intend  himself 
and  his  followers.  We  all,  that  is,  all  the  stronger  or  more 
enlightened  class  of  believers.  Whereas,  in  v.  7,  he  may  refer 
to  Christians  generally,  including  the  strong  and  weak.  '  This 
knowledge  is  not  in  all,  for  the  weak  have  it  not.'  Or  the  dis 
tinction  may  be  between  theoretical  and  practical  knowledge. 
All  Christians  admit,  as  a  matter  of  theory,  that  an  idol  is 
nothing,  but  this  knowledge  is  not  in  all  believers  practical 
and  controlling.  This  also  is  natural  and  satisfactory.  It  is 
analogous  to  the  statements  of  this  same  apostle  in  reference 
to  the  heathen.  In  Rom.  1,  23,  he  says,  'They  know  God,' 
but  in  1  Cor.  1,  21,  he  says,  they  'know  not  God.'  These 


I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  1.  139 

statements  are  perfectly  consistent,  because  the  word  know 
has  different  senses.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  all  men  know 
God  ;  they  all,  from  the  constitution  of  their  nature,  and  from 
the  works  of  God,  know  that  there  is  a  being  on  whom  they 
are  dependent,  and  to  whom  they  are  responsible.  But  this 
is  not  the  knowledge  of  God  which  is  said  to  be  "  eternal 
life."  It  is  therefore  perfectly  consistent  to  attribute  the  for 
mer  knowledge  to  the  heathen,  though  he  denies  to  them  the 
latter.  So  here  it  is  consistent  to  say  that  all  Christians  have 
a  theoretical  knowledge  of  the  truth  that  there  is  but  one 
God,  and  that  idols  are  nothing,  and  yet  say  that  this  know 
ledge  is  not  practical  and  controlling  in  all.  It  is  one  of  the 
great  beauties  of  the  Scriptures,  that  the  sacred  writers  in  the 
calm  consciousness  of  truth,  in  the  use  of  popular,  as  distin 
guished  from  philosophical  language,  affirm  and  deny  the  same 
verbal  proposition,  assured  that  the  consistency  and  intent  of 
their  statements  will  make  their  way  to  the  heart  and  con 
science.  That  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  theoretical,  as  dis 
tinguished  from  true,  practical  knowledge,  is  plain  from  what  he 
says  of  it.  It  puffeth  up.  The  Greek  word  here  used  (<£uo-ioco,) 
is,  in  the  New  Testament,  employed  in  the  sense  of  the  word 
(<£vo-aw,)  which  means  to  blow,  to  fill  with  wind,  to  inflate  ; 
and  then,  to  render  vain  and  conceited.  Mere  theoretical  or 
speculative  knowledge,  that  is,  knowledge  divorced  from  love, 
tends  to  inflate  the  mind,  i.  e.  renders  it  vain  and  conceited. 
It  is  a  great  mistake,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  mere  know 
ledge,  without  religion,  elevates  and  refines  men,  or  can  purify 
society.  It  is  essential,  but  it  is  insufficient. 

Charity  edifieth.  Charity  is  an  inadequate  and  unhappy 
translation  of  the  Greek  word  (dycnn?),  because,  agreeably  to 
its  Latin  derivation,  it  properly  means  the  feeling  which  arises 
from  the  perception  of  the  wants  and  sufferings  of  others,  and 
the  consequent  desire  to  relieve  them.  Love  (dyaTny,  a  word 
peculiar  to  Hellenistic  Greek,)  is  much  more  comprehensive 
than  this,  not  only  because  it  may  have  God  for  its  object,  but 
also  because,  when  exercised  towards  men  it  includes  compla 
cency  and  delight  as  well  as  benevolence.  It  is  of  this  com 
prehensive  virtue  the  apostle  treats  at  length  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  this  epistle,  and  of  which  he  here  says,  it  edifies. 
It  does  not  terminate  on  itself,  as  knowledge  does,  but  goes 
out  of  itself,  and  seeks  its  happiness  in  another,  and  lives  and 
acts  for  others.  It  is,  therefore,  something  incomparably 


140  I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  1.2.3. 

higher  than  knowledge,  when  the  two  are  separated  and 
distinguished. 

2.  And  if  any  man  think   that  he  knoweth  any 
thing,  he  knoweth  nothing  yet  as  he  ought  to  know. 

The  knowledge  which  puffs  up  is  not  true  knoAvledge. 
One  is  constantly  astonished  at  the  profound  remarks  which 
every  where  occur  in  the  sacred  writings  ;  remarks  which  do 
not  directly  refer  to  the  mysteries  of  the  gospel,  but  philoso 
phical  remarks;  that  is,  such  as  reveal  the  deepest  insight 
into  the  nature  of  man  and  the  workings  of  his  constitution. 
Philosophy  and  theology  are  inseparably  connected.  The 
former  is  an  element  of  the  latter.  A  system  of  philosophy 
might  be  constructed  by  collecting  and  classifying  the  apho 
risms  of  the  Bible.  And  the  reason  why  the  philosophy  which 
underlies  Augustinianism  has  stood  as  a  rock  in  the  ocean, 
while  other  systems  rise  and  fall  like  waves  around  it,  is,  that 
it  is  derived  from  the  word  of  God,  and  not  from  the  specula 
tions  of  men.  The  relation  between  the  cognitive  and  emo 
tional  faculties  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  in  philo 
sophy.  In  many  systems  they  are  regarded  as  distinct.  Paul 
here  teaches,  that  with  regard  to  a  large  class  of  objects, 
knowledge  without  feeling  is  nothing ;  it  supposes  the  most 
essential  characteristics  of  the  object  to  be  unperceived.  And 
in  the  following  verse  he  teaches  that  love  is  the  highest  form 
of  knowledge.  To  know  God  is  to  love  him  ;  and  to  love  him 
is  to  know  him.  Love  is  intelligent,  and  knowledge  is  emo 
tional.  Hence  the  apostle  says,  If  a  man  thinketh  that  he 
knoweth  any  thing  ;  that  is,  if  he  is  proud  or  conceited,  he  is 
ignorant.  He  does  not  apprehend  the  true  nature  of  the  ob 
jects  which  he  pretends  to  know.  He  does  not  see  their  vast- 
ness,  their  complexity,  their  majesty  and  excellence.  These 
are  the  attributes  of  religious  truths  which  are  the  most  essen 
tial,  and  without  the  apprehension  of  which  they  cannot  be 
known. 

3.  But  if  any  man  love  God,  the  same  is  known  of 
him. 

To  love  is  to  know  and  to  be  known.  Compare  1  John  4, 
7.  8,  "  Every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  God,  and  knoweth 
God  ;  he  that  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God,  for  God  is  love." 


I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  3.  141 

This  is  the  precise  sentiment  of  the  text.  Love  is  essential  to 
knowledge.  He  that  loves  God,  knows  God.  The  apostle  in 
this  connection  interchanges  love  of  the  brethren  and  the  love 
of  God,  because  the  love  of  the  brethren  is  only  one  of  the 
forms  in  which  the  love  of  God  manifests  itself.  When  he 
said,  "Love  edifieth,"  he  meant  love  to  the  brethren,  and 
without  that  love,  he  says,  there  can  be  no  true  knowledge ; 
but  if  a  man  love  God,  (which  includes  love  to  the  brethren,) 
the  same  is  known  of  him.  What  is  meant  by  this  last  expres 
sion,  is  not  easy  to  determine.  To  be  known  of  God  may, 
according  to  scriptural  usage,  mean,  1.  To  be  selected  or 
approved  by  him,  Exod.  33,  12.  17.  Nahum  1,  7.  Matt.  7,  23. 
2.  To  be  recognized  as  belonging  to  a  particular  class.  So 
here,  the  sense  may  be,  '  Is  recognized  by  him  as  one  of  his 
disciples,  or  as  one  of  his  children.  3.  To  be  the  object  of 
God's  knowledge  ;  but  what  this  can  mean  in  this  connection, 
unless  it  include  the  idea  of  approbation,  it  is  not  easy  to  see. 
4.  According  to  others,  the  word  (eyr/coo-rai)  is  to  be  taken  in 
a  Hophal  sense — 'has  been  caused  to  know.'  *If  any  man 
loves  God,  the  same  has  by  him  been  brought  to  the  true 
knowledge.'  This  view  certainly  suits  the  context.  c  If  a  man 
is  without  love,  he  has  not  true  knowledge  ;  but  if  he  love 
God,  he  has  the  right  kind  of  knowledge.'  The  later  gram 
marians  deny  that  the  passive  form  of  Greek  verbs  ever  has 
a  causative  sense  analogous  to  the  Hophal  of  Hebrew  verbs. 
But  as  intransitive  verbs  in  Greek  often  have  a  causative  sig 
nification,  (see  Matt.  5,  45.  28,  19.  2  Cor.  2,  14,)  it  is  not 
unreasonable  that  the  passive  form  should  be  so  used,  if  the 
context  require  it.  In  Gal.  4,  9,  Paul  says,  "  If  after  that  ye 
have  known  God,  or  rather  are  known  of  God ; "  wThere  the 
sense  may  be,  '  or  rather  have  been  taught  of  God.'  Whether 
the  general  principle  be  admitted  or  not,  that  the  passive  of 
Greek  verbs  can  have  this  causative  force,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  Paul  assumed  that  the  particular  verb  yivwo-Kctv  might 
mean  cognoscere  facere,  (i.  e.  to  teach,}  a  sense  attributed  to 
it  by  Stephanus  in  his  Thesaurus ;  and  if  so,  the  passive  as 
here  used  may  mean,  was  taught.  It  is  to  be  noticed,  that  it 
is  only  this  verb  that  he  appears  to  use  in  this  way.  If,  how 
ever,  this  interpretation  be  rejected,  as  is  done  by  the  major 
ity  of  modern  commentators,  as  contrary  to  Greek  usage,  the 
first  explanation  given  above  gives  a  good  sense.  '  If  any  love 
God,  the  same  is  approved  of  him,  i.  e.  is  recognised  as  having 
the  right  kind  of  knowledge.' 


142  I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  4. 

4.  As  concerning  therefore  the  eating  of  those 
things  that  are  offered  in  sacrifice  unto  idols,  we  know 
that  an  idol  (is)  nothing  in  the  world,  and  that  (there 
is)  none  other  God  but  one. 

Concerning  then.  The  particle  (ow,)  then  serves  to  re 
sume  the  subject  of  v.  1  after  the  interruption  occasioned  by 
the  preceding  parenthesis.  For  the  general  expression  in  v.  1, 
"  Concerning  idol-sacrifices,"  we  have  here  the  more  definite 
one,  "  Concerning  the  eating  of  idol-sacrifices ; "  which  was  the 
point  in  dispute.  To  determine  whether  it  was  proper  to  eat 
of  these  sacrifices,  it  must  be  determined,  first,  what  an  idol 
is ;  and  secondly,  what  effect  the  eating  would  have.  As  to 
the  former,  Paul  says,  there  is  no  idol,  (or  an  idol  is  nothing ;) 
and  as  to  the  latter,  that  the  eating  could  have  no  effect  on 
our  religious  state ;  it  could  make  us  neither  better  nor  worse, 
v.  8.  From  this  it  follows,  that  eating  or  not  eating  is  a  mat 
ter  of  indifference.  Nevertheless,  if  our  eating  causes  others 
to  sin,  we  ought  not  to  eat.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the 
apostle,  in  answering  questions  of  conscience,  does  not  give  a 
categorical  reply,  but  gives  the  reason  for  his  decision.  So 
here  ;  and  in  ch.  1 1  he  does  not  simply  say  it  was  wrong  for 
Grecian  women  to  appear  in  public  unveiled,  but  he  unfolds 
the  principles  valid  for  all  time,  on  which  the  decision  of  that 
particular  question  rested. 

As  to  the  question,  What  is  an  idol  ?  it  is  obvious  that  the 
word  (etSo)A.ov,  image,)  is  used  metonymically  for  the  deity 
which  the  image  was  intended  to  represent.  It  is  of  such 
deity,  or  rather  of  the  heathen  gods  generally,  the  apostle 
here  speaks.  His  words  are,  "  We  know  that  ov&v  etSco/W  eV 
Kooyi,u>,"  which  may  mean,  either,  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the 
world  /  or,  there  is  no  idol  in  the  world,  i.  e.  the  universe.  If 
the  former  version  be  adopted,  the  sense  may  be,  either, 
4  these  deities  are  nonentities,'  they  have  no  existence ;  or, 
they  are  powerless,  they  have  no  influence  over  the  affairs  of 
men.  In  favour  of  that  translation  is  the  analogy  of  Scripture. 
In  the  Old  Testament  the  gods  of  the  heathen  are  frequently 
said  to  be  nothing,  vanities,  lies,  &c.,  Is.  41,  24.  44,  8.  9.  Jer. 
10,  14.  Ps.  115,  4.  8.  So  the  Rabbis  also  said,  Noverant 
utique  Israelitae,  idolum  nihil  esse,  Sanhdr.  63.  2.  But  this 
explanation  is  not  suitable  here.  As  ovSas  $eos  in  the  next 
clause  means  there  is  no  God,  ov&v  et'SwXov  must  mean,  there  is 
no  idol.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  heathen  gods  are  either 


I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  4.5.  U3 

nonentities  or  powerless,  for  in  10,  19  Paul  says  they  are 
demons.  But  it  means,  there  are  no  such  beings  in  the  uni 
verse  as  the  heathen  conceived  their  gods  to  be.  There  was 
no  Jupiter,  Juno,  or  Mars.  There  is  no  God,  no  real  divine 
being  but  one.  The  objects  of  heathen  worship  were  neither 
what  the  heathen  took  them  to  be,  nor  were  they  gods  in  the 
true  sense  of  that  term. 

5.  For  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether 
in  heaven  or  in  earth,  as  there  be  gods  many,  and  lords 
many, 

This  verse  admits  of  two  interpretations.  It  is  commonly 
understood  to  mean,  that  although  there  are  many  imaginary 
gods  in  heaven  and  earth,  i.  e.  beings  Avhom  the  heathen  re 
gard  as  divinities,  yet  in  fact  there  is  but  one  God.  When  he 
says,  there  are  many  gods  and  many  lords,  he  is  to  be  under 
stood  to  mean  that  such  is  the  fact  in  the  mythology  of  the 
heathen.  A  large  number  of  commentators,  however,  under 
stand  the  passage  thus :  '  There  is  but  one  true  God  ;  for  al 
though  it  be  admitted  that  there  are  many  beings  called  gods, 
as  in  fact  there  are  gods  many  and  lords  many,  yet  to  us  there 
is  but  one.'  The  apostle  concedes  that,  in  the  wide  sense  of 
the  term,  there  are  many  gods  and  lords ;  and,  therefore,  if  it 
should  be  admitted  (what  he  does  not  admit)  that  the  whole 
hierarchy  of  divinities,  as  conceived  of  by  the  heathen,  actually 
existed,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  there  is  but  one  God,  the 
creator  and  end  of  all  things.  In  favour  of  this  interpretation 
is  the  usage  of  the  O.  T.  Deut.  10, 17,  "The  Lord  your  God 
is  God  of  gods  and  Lord  of  lords."  Jos.  22,  22.  Dan.  2,  4V. 
Ps.  136,  2.  3.  These  passages  show  that  the  words  god  and 
lord  are  applied  in  a  wide  sense  to  other  beings  than  to  the 
true  God.  ^  2.  The  position  and  force  of  the  words  are  in  fa 
vour  of  this  view.  They  mean,  Sunt  qui  dii  dicuntur  ;  there 
are  powers  and  beings  who  are  called  gods,  as  there  are  gods 
many,  and  lords  many.  To  make  this  mean,  there  are  in  the 
estimation  of  the  heathen  many  gods,  is  to  insert  something 
which  is  not  in  the  text.  3.  In  10, 19.  20,  the  apostle  asserts 
that  the  objects  of  heathen  worship  are  real  and  powerful 
beings.  4.  The  apparent  contradiction  between  saying,  there 
is  no  idol  in  the  world,  and  saying,  there  are  many  gods,  is 
easily  removed.  The  meaning  is,  4  There  is  no  such  being  in 
the  universe  as  Jupiter  or  Mars ;  for  although  there  is  a  mul- 


144  I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  5.6. 

titude  of  supernatural  beings,  called  gods  and  lords,  not  only 
by  the  heathen,  but  also  in  Scripture,  yet  there  are  no  such 
beings  as  those  which  the  heathen  imagine.'  The  whole  hea 
then  mythology  is  a  fable,  the  work  of  the  imagination.  There 
are  no  such  gods  in  existence,  though  there  are  demons  in 
abundance,  of  various  ranks  and  powers,  called  gods.  There 
are  two  things  which  the  apostle  means  to  deny.  1.  The  ex 
istence  of  such  beings  as  the  heathen  conceived  their  gods  to 
be.  2.  That  the  supernatural  beings  who  do  really  exist,  and 
who  are  called  gods,  are  really  divine.  They  are  mere  crea 
tures. 

6.  But  to  us  (there  is  but)  one  God,  the  Father, 
of  whom  (are)  all  things,  and  we  in  him ;  and  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  (are)  all  things,  and  we  by  him. 

Though  there  are  many  creatures  called  gods,  there  is  but 
one  true  God,  the  creator  of  all  things.  To  us,  i.  e.  to  Chris 
tians.  There  is  one  God,  i.  e.  only  one  being  who  is  eternal, 
self-existing  and  almighty.  This  one  God  is,  first,  the  Father  ; 
not  the  first  person  of  the  Trinity,  but  our  father.  The  word 
does  not  here  express  the  relation  of  the  first  to  the  second 
person  in  the  Godhead,  but  the  relation  of  God  as  such  to  us 
as  his  children.  When  we  say,  "Our  Father  who  art  in 
heaven,"  the  word  Father  designates  the  Supreme  Being,  the 
Triune  Jehovah.  Secondly,  of  this  one  God  it  is  said,  of  him 
are  all  things.  He,  the  one  God,  is  the  source  of  the  whole 
universe,  and  all  that  it  contains.  He  created  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power.  All  other  beings  are  his  creatures. 
Thirdly,  we  are  to  him.  He  is  our  end ;  for  his  glory  we  were 
created  and  redeemed.  Our  version  rendering  the  words  cts 
avrov,  in  him,  is  an  unnecessary  departure  from  their  proper 
meaning. 

As  there  is  but  one  divine  Being,  so  there  is  but  one  Lord, 
i.  e.  one  administrator  of  the  universe,  into  whose  hands  all 
power  in  heaven  and  earth  has  been  committed,  and  who  is 
the  only  mediator  between  God  and  man.  This  one  Lord  is 
Jesus  Christ,  Jesus  the  Messiah,  the  historical  person,  born 
in  Bethlehem  and  crucified  on  Calvary.  Of  this  one  Lord  it 
is  said,  first,  all  things  are  by  him.  The  all  things  in  this 
clause  must  be  coextensive  with  the  all  things  in  the  preceding 
one,  i.  e.  the  universe.  Comp.  Eph.  3,  9.  Col.  1, 16.  Heb.  1,  2. 
The  universe  was  created  through  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.  the  ener^rv 


I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  6.7.  145 

of  the  one  God  was  exercised  through  the  Logos,  who  became 
flesh,  assuming  our  nature  into  personal  union  with  himself, 
and  is  therefore  called  Jesus  Christ.  This  passage  affords  a 
striking  illustration  of  the  fact  that  the  person  of  Christ  may 
be  denominated  from  his  human  nature,  when  what  is  affirmed 
of  him  is  true  only  of  his  divine  nature.  He  is  here  called 
Jesus  Christ,  though  the  work  of  creation  attributed  to  him 
was  the  work  of  the  Logos.  Secondly,  it  is  said  of  this  one 
Lord,  that  we  are  by  him.  This  does  not  mean  we  were  cre 
ated  by  him ;  for  we  Christians  are  included  in  the  all  things. 
It  would  be  tautological  to  say,  He  created  all  things,  and  "he 
created  us.  The  meaning  is,  we  as  Christians  (not,  we  as 
creatures,  for  that  had  been  said  before),  we  as  the  children  of 
God  are  by  him.  We  were  redeemed  by  him ;  we  are  brought 
unto  God  by  him. 

7.  Howbeit  (there  is)  not  in  every  man  that  know 
ledge  :  for  some  with  conscience  of  the  idol  unto  this 
hour  eat  (it)  as  a  thing  offered  unto  an  idol ;  and  their 
conscience  being  weak  is  defiled. 

The  context^  shows  that  (fj  yvokns),  the  knowledge,  means 
the  particular  kind  of  knowledge  of  which  he  had  been  speak 
ing,  viz.  the  knowledge  that  there  is  no  idol  in  the  world,  or 
that  the  gods  of  the  heathen  are  imaginary  beings.  Though 
the  weaker  believers  knew  that  there  is  but  one  true  God, 
they  were  still  not  fully  persuaded  that  the  gods  of  the  hea 
then  had  ^no  existence.  With  conscience  of  an  idol.  The 
word  owei&pis  unites  the  meanings  of  our  words  conscience 
and  consciousness,  being  sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes 
the  other.  Here  the  former  meaning  is  better  suited  to  the 
context.  Conscience  of  an  idol  means  a  conscience  under  the 
influence  of  an  idol;  as  in  1  Pet.  2,  19  conscience  of  God 
means  a  conscience  under  the  influence  of  God.*  The  moral 
judgments  and  feelings  of  the  persons  referred  to,  were  still 
influenced  by  the  apprehension  that  the  heathen  gods  might 
be  real  beings.  Unto  this  hour.  The  words  («os  apn)  until 

*  Instead  of  owetS^i  the  MSS?  A-  B,  J7,  46,  and  the  Coptic,  Ethiopia  and 
Syrian  versions  read  avv-nbela,  which  reading  is  adopted  by  Lachmann  and 
Tischendorf.  The  meaning  would  then  he  '  through  custom  of  an  idol,'  i.  e.  from 
being  long  accustomed  to  believe  that  there  were  such  beings.  The  great 
weight  of  authority,  however,  is  in  favour  of  the  common  reading. 


146  I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  7.8. 

now,  in  the  common  Text  stand  after  the  word  for  idol;  most 
modern  editors  of  the  Greek  Testament,  on  the  authority  of 
the  older  MSS.,  place  them  before  that  word.  In  the  one  po 
sition,  they  naturally  qualify  the  word  to  eat ;  '  until  now  they 
eatj  i.  e.  they  continue  to  eat.  In  the  other,  they  qualify  the 
word  conscience ;  with  a  conscience  still  under  the  influence 
of  an  idol,  which  gives  a  better  sense.  Having  this  persua 
sion,  or  at  least  this  apprehension  of  the  reality  of  the  idol, 
they  eat  the  sacrifice  as  a  sacrifice.  That  is,  they  do  not  re 
gard  it  as  ordinary  meat,  but  as  something  which  had  a  reli 
gious  character  and  influence,  from  the  fact  of  its  having  been 
offered  in  sacrifice.  Hence  their  conscience  being  weak  was 
defiled.  A  weak  conscience  is  one  which  either  regards  as 
wrong  what  is  not  in  fact  so ;  or  one  which  is  not  clear  and 
decided  in  its  judgments.  According  to  the  Scriptures, 
"whatever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin,"  Rom.  14,23;  therefore 
whatever  a  man  does,  thinking  it  is  wrong,  or  doubtful  whether 
it  be  wrong  or  not,  to  him  it  is  sin.  Thus  the  man  who  eats 
an  idol-sacrifice,  uncertain  whether  he  is  doing  right  or  not, 
defiles  his  conscience.  The  conscience  is  said  to  be  defiled, 
either  when  it  approves  or  cherishes  sin,  or  when  it  is  bur 
dened  by  a  sense  of  guilt.  The  latter  form  of  pollution  is  that 
here  intended.  The  man  who  acts  in  the  way  supposed  feels 
guilty,  and  is  really  guilty. 

8.  But  meat  commendeth  us  not  to  God :  for  nei 
ther,  if  we  eat,  are  we  the  better ;  neither,  if  we  eat  not, 
are  we  the  worse. 

This  verse  is  analogous  to  v.  1,  in  so  far  that  it  contains  a 
principle  adopted  by  the  apostle  as  his  own,  which  the  Co 
rinthians  urged  to  justify  their  latitudinarian  practice  with 
regard  to  these  sacrifices.  It  is  not  introduced  as  an  objec 
tion,  or  as  a  point  to  be  contested,  but  as  an  admitted  truth, 
the  application  of  which  is  to  be  regulated  by  other  principles 
no  less  true.  It  is  admitted  that  meat  does  not  commend  us 
to  God.  Literally,  does  not  cause  us  to  stand  near  to  God ; 
which  involves  the  idea  expressed  in  our  version.  For  eating 
makes  us  neither  better  nor  worse.  It  neither  causes  us  to 
excel  (Trepio-o-eu'eiv)  nor  to  come  behind  (VOTC/OCM/) . 

There  is  another  view  of  the  bearing  of  this  passage  which 
has  much  to  commend  it,  and  which  has  many  advocates.  It 
is  regarded  as  assigning  a  reason  why  the  strong  should  have 


I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  8.9.10.  147 

respect  to  the  weak.  '  If  meat  were  a  matter  of  importance,  if 
it  really  commended  us  to  God,  there  would  be  a  valid  reason 
why  you  should  eat  these  sacrifices.  But  as  it  is  a  matter  of 
indifference,  you  should  not  cause  your  brethren  to  offend.' 
This  would  be  a  natural  interpretation  if  the  caution  which 
follows  Avere  introduced  as  an  inference.  That  is,  if  the  apos 
tle  had  said,  4  Eating  is  a  matter  of  indifference,  therefore  you 
should  use  your  liberty  with  due  regard  to  your  brethren.' 
His  language,  however,  is,  '  Meat  does  not  commend  us  to 
God ;  it  makes  us  neither  better  nor  worse ;  but  take  heed 
how  you  use  your  liberty.'  It  is  evidently  a  concession  limited 
by  what  follows;  comp.  6,  12,  "All  things  are  lawful,  but  all 
things  are  not  expedient ;"  see  also  10,  23. 

9.  But  take  heed  lest  by  any  means  this  liberty  of 
yours  become  a  stumblingblock  to  them  that  are  weak. 

Admitting  you  have  the  right  to  eat  of  these  sacrifices, 
take  care  lest  your  eating  become  an  occasion  of  sin  to  your 
weaker  brethren.  Your  liberty.  The  word  (e£ou<jt'a)  means, 
1.  Ability  or  power.  2.  Lawful  power  or  right.  3.  Author 
ity  ;  '  Who  gave  thee  this  authority  ? '  4.  Power  over  others, 
dominion  or  rule.  Here  the  second  sense  is  the  one  in  which 
the  word  is  to  be  taken.  Stumblingblock,  (Trpos/co/x/xa,)  else 
where  rendered  offence,  in  a  moral  sense  is  that  which  is  an 
occasion  to  sin,  or  which  causes  men  to  fall.  In  the  same 
sense  the  word  (o-KavSaXov,  literally,  a  trap-stick,)  scandal  is 
used,  Luke  17,  1.  Rom.  14,  13.  1  John  2,  10.  The  weak  are 
the  doubting,  the  undecided,  those  "  not  having  knowledge," 
as  is  implied  in  the  next  verse. 

10.  For  if  any  man  see  thee  which  hast  knowledge 
sit  at  meat  in  the  idol's  temple,  shall  not  the  conscience 
of  him  which  is  weak  be  emboldened  to  eat  those  things 
which  are  offered  to  idols  ; 

This  verse  is  designed  to  show  how  eating  these  sacrifices 
might  be  an  occasion  of  sin  to  others.  For  serves  to  intro 
duce  the  illustration.  See  thee  having  knowledge.  This  is  the 
description  of  the  strong.  They  were  those  whose  views  were 
clear  and  their  convictions  decided.  Sit  at  meat,  (Kara/cet/Ae- 
vov,)  literally,  lying  down,  according  to  the  ancient  custom  of 


148  I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  10.11. 


reclining  on  a  couch  at  table.  The  word  dm/cei/Acu,  to  lie,  up, 
is  also  used,  as  the  couches  were  usually  higher  than  the  table. 
In  the  idol's  temple.  In  the  tenth  chapter  the  apostle  teaches, 
that  as  eating  of  things  offered  to  idols  was  a  matter  of  indif 
ference,  there  was  no  harm  in  buying  such  meat  in  the  mar 
ket,  or  in  partaking  of  it  at  a  private  table  ;  but  that  to  eat  it 
within  the  precincts  of  the  temple  was  an  act  of  idolatry,  and 
brought  them  into  communion  with  demons,  and  therefore 
utterly  broke  off  their  connection  with  Christ.  Here  he  views 
the  matter  simply  under  the  aspect  of  an  offence,  or  in  refer 
ence  to  its  effect  on  the  weaker  brethren,  and  therefore  says 
nothing  of  the  sinfulness  of  the  act  in  itself.  In  like  manner, 
in  the  eleventh  chapter,  speaking  of  it  as  a  matter  of  deco 
rum,  he  simply  condemns  women  speaking  in  church  unveiled, 
as  though  he  had  no  objection  to  their  speaking  in  public  ; 
but  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  he  condemns  the  thing  itself,  and 
not  merely  the  manner  of  doing  it.  Shall  not  the  conscience 
of  him  being  weak  (i.  e.  being  uncertain  whether  he  was 
doing  right  or  wrong,)  be  emboldened;  literally,  be  edified. 
This  must  either  be  understood  ironically,  which  is  out  of 
keeping  with  the  whole  tone  of  the  passage,  or  the  word  must 
be  taken  in  the  sense  of  built  up,  carried  forward  to  the  point 
(ets)  of  eating  of  the  idol-sacritices.  That  is,  he  might  be  led 
to  do  what  his  conscience  secretly  condemned. 

11.  And  through  thy  knowledge  shall  the  weak 
brother  perish,  for  whom  Christ  died  ? 

That  is,  shall  your  knowledge  be  the  occasion  of  the  per 
dition  of  a  weak  brother  ?  There  are  three  forms  in  which 
the  apostle  expresses  the  consequence  of  doing  what  the  con 
science  is  not  satisfied  is  right.  In  v.  7  he  says,  the  conscience 
is  defiled  ;  here,  he  says,  the  man  perishes  or  is  lost  ;  in  Rom. 
14,  23,  he  says,  "He  that  doubteth  is  damned  (condemned)  if 
he  eat."  All  these  forms  of  expression  amount  to  the  same 
thing.  Guilt,  condemnation  and  perdition  are  connected. 
The  one  implies  the  other.  Whatever  brings  guilt  on  the 
conscience  exposes  to  condemnation,  and  condemnation  is 
perdition. 

For  whom  Christ  died.  There  is  great  power  and  pathos 
in  these  words.  Shall  we,  for  the  sake  of  eating  one  kind  of 
meat  rather  than  another,  endanger  the  salvation  of  those  for 
whom  the  eternal  Son  of  God  laid  down  his  life  ?  The  infinite 


I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  11.  149 

distance  between  Christ  and  us,  and  the  almost  infinite  dis 
tance  between  his  sufferings  and  the  trifling  self-denial  re 
quired  at  our  hands,  give  to  the  apostle's  appeal  a  force  the 
Christian  heart  cannot  resist.  The  language  of  Paul  in  this 
verse  seems  to  assume  that  those  may  perish  for  whom  Christ 
died.  It  belongs,  therefore,  to  the  same  category  as  those 
numerous  passages  which  make  the  same  assumption  with  re 
gard  to  the  elect.  If  the  latter  are  consistent  with  the  cer 
tainty  of  the  salvation  of  all  the  elect,  then  this  passage  is 
consistent  with  the  certainty  of  the  salvation  of  those  for 
whom  Christ  specifically  died.  It  was  absolutely  certain  that 
none  of  Paul's  companions  in  shipwreck  was  on  that  occasion 
to  lose  his  life,  because  the  salvation  of  the  whole  company 
had  been  predicted  and  promised ;  and  yet  the  apostle  said 
that  if  the  sailors  were  allowed  to  take  away  the  boats,  those 
left  on  board  could  not  be  saved.  This  appeal  secured  the  ac 
complishment  of  the  promise.  So  God's  telling  the  elect  that 
if  they  apostatize  they  shall  perish,  prevents  their  apostasy. 
And  in  like  manner,  the  Bible  teaching  that  those  for  whom 
Christ  died  shall  perish  if  they  violate  their  conscience,  pre 
vents  their  transgressing,  or  brings  them  to  repentance.  God's 
purposes  embrace  the  means  as  well  as  the  end.  If  the  means 
fail,  the  end  will  fail.  He  secures  the  end  by  securing  the 
means.  It  is  just  as  certain  that  those  for  whom  Christ  died 
shall  be  saved,  as  that  the  elect  shall  be  saved.  Yet  in  both 
cases  the  event  is  spoken  of  as  conditional.  There  is  not  only 
a  possibility,  but  an  absolute  certainty  of  their  perishing  if 
they  fall  away.  But  this  is  precisely  what  God  has  promised 
to  prevent.  This  passage,  therefore,  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  those  numerous  passages  which  teach  that  Christ's  death 
secures  the  salvation  of  all  those  who  were  given  to  him  in  the 
covenant  of  redemption.  There  is,  however,  a  sense  in  which 
it  is  scriptural  to  say  that  Christ  died  for  all  men.  This  is 
very  different  from  saying  that  he  died  equally  for  all  men,  or 
that  his  death  had  no  other  reference  to  those  who  are  saved 
than  it  had  to  those  who  are  lost.  To  die/br  one  is  to  die  for 
his  benefit.  As  Christ's  death  has  benefited  the  whole  world, 
prolonged  the  probation  of  men,  secured  for  them  innumera 
ble  blessings,  provided  a  righteousness  sufficient  and  suitable 
for  all,  it  may  be  said  that  he  died  for  all.  And  in  reference 
to  this  obvious  truth  the  language  of  the  apostle,  should  any 
prefer  this  interpretation,  may  be  understood,  '  Why  should 
we  destroy  one  for  whose  benefit  Christ  laid  down  his  life  ? ' 


150  I.  CORINTHIANS  8,  11.12.13. 

All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  great  scriptural  truth 
that  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  his  people,  that  his 
death  renders  certain  the  salvation  of  all  those  whom  the 
Father  hath  given  him,  and  therefore  that  he  died  not  only 
for  them  but  in  their  place,  and  on  the  condition  that  they 
should  never  die. 

12.  But  when  ye  sin  so  against  the  brethren,  and 
wound  their  weak  conscience,  ye  sin  against  Christ. 

We  sin  against  our  brethren  when  we  wound  their  weak 
conscience.  The  one  phrase  explains  the  other.  To  wound  a 
man's  conscience  is  to  give  it  the  pain  of  remorse.  When  we 
bring  on  him  a  sense  of  guilt  we  inflict  on  him  the  greatest  evil 
in  our  power ;  not  only  because  a  wounded  spirit  is  worse 
than  a  wounded  body ;  but  also  because  a  sense  of  guilt  alien 
ates  us  from  God  and  brings  us  under  the  power  of  Satan. 
He  who  thus  sins  against  his  brother,  sins  against  Christ. 
This  is  true  in  two  senses.  An  injury  done  to  a  child  is  an 
injury  to  the  parent,  both  because  proper  regard  for  the  pa 
rent  would  prevent  one  from  injuring  his  child;  and  also 
because  the  parent  suffers  in  the  child.  They  are  so  united 
that  the  injury  of  the  one  is  the  injury  of  the  other.  So  also 
it  is  a  manifestation  of  want  of  love  to  Christ,  an  insult  and 
injury  to  him,  to  injure  his  people ;  and  moreover,  he  and 
they  are  so  united  that  whatever  of  good  or  evil  is  done  to 
them  is  done  also  to  him.  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto 
one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto 
me,"  Matt.  25,  40.  If  we  believed  this  aright  it  would  render 
us  very  careful  not  to  wound  our  fellow  Christians,  and  make 
us  also  feel  it  to  be  an  honour  to  relieve  their  wants. 

13.  Wherefore,  if  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend, 
I  will  eat  no  flesh  while  the  world  standeth,  lest  I  make 
my  brother  to  offend. 

The  word  o-KavSaAi£<o  means  either  to  offend,  or  to  cause  to 
offend.  That  is,  either  to  provoke,  or  to  cause  to  sin.  The 
English  word  is  also  used  in  both  these  senses.  Matt.  17,  27, 
"  That  we  may  not  offend  them,"  i.  e.  provoke  them.  Matt. 
5,  29,  "If  thy  eye  offend  thee,"  i.  e.  cause  thee  to  sin ;  and 
Matt.  18,  6,  "Whoso  shall  offend  (i.  e.  cause  to  sin)  one  of 
these  little  ones  which  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him 


I.   CORINTHIANS  8,  13.  151 

that  a  mill-stone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he 
were  drowned  in  the  depth  of  the  sea."  This  last  quoted  pas 
sage  shows  how  serious  a  matter  our  Lord  considers  it  to  lead 
even  the  weakest  Christian  into  sin.  It  is  still  worse  to  lead 
him  into  error,  for  error  is  the  mother  of  many  sins.  It  shows 
also  how  great  an  evil  sin  is,  and  justifies  the  strong  language 
of  the  apostle  that  he  would  never  eat  flesh  rather  than  cause 
his  brother  to  offend.  It  is  morally  obligatory,  therefore,  to 
abstain  from  indulging  in  things  indifferent,  when  the  use  of 
them  is  the  occasion  of  sin  to  others.  This  is  a  principle  the 
application  of  which  must  be  left  to  every  man's  conscience  in 
the  fear  of  God.  No  rule  of  conduct,  founded  on  expediency, 
can  be  enforced  by  church  discipline.  It  was  right  in  Paul  to 
refuse  to  eat  flesh  for  fear  of  causing  others  to  offend  ;  but  he 
could  not  have  been  justly  exposed  to  discipline,  had  he  seen 
fit  to  eat  it.  He  circumcised  Timothy,  and  refused  to  circum 
cise  Titus.  Whenever  a  thing  is  right  or  wrong  according  to 
circumstances,  every  man  must  have  the  right  to  judge  of 
those  circumstances. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  apostle  illustrates  the  duty  of  foregoing  the  exercise  of  our  rights  for  the 
good  of  others,  by  a  reference  to  his  giving  up  his  undoubted  right  to  be 
supported  by  the  church,  vs.  1-18.  He  shows  that  in  other  ways  he  ac 
commodated  himself  to  the  opinions  and  prejudices  of  others,  19-23.  He 
reminds  his  readers  that  nothing  good  or  great  could  be  attained  without 
self-denial,  vs.  24-27. 

The  right  of  ministers  to  an  adequate  maintenance.     The 
necessity  of  self-denial.    Vs.  1-27. 

HAVING  in  the  preceding  chapter  urged  on  the  strong  the 
duty  of  foregoing  the  use  of  their  rights  for  the  sake  of  their 
weaker  brethren,  the  apostle  shows  how  he  had  acted  on  that 
principle.  He  was  an  apostle,  and  therefore  had  all  the  rights 
of  an  apostle.  His  apostleship  was  abundantly  clear,  because 
he  had  seen  the  Lord  Jesus  and  was  his  immediate  messenger ; 
and  his  divine  mission  had  been  confirmed,  at  least  among  the 
Corinthians,  beyond  dispute.  They  were  the  seal  of  his  apos- 


152  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  1. 

tleship,  vs.  1-3.  Being  an  apostle,  he  had  the  same  right  to 
be  supported  and  to  have  his  family  supported,  had  he  chosen 
to  many,  as  Peter  or  any  other  apostle,  vs.  4-6.  This  right 
to  adequate  support  he  proves,  First,  from  the  principle  which 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  society,  that  the  laborer  is  worthy  of 
his  reward,  v.  7.  Secondly,  from  the  fact  that  this  principle 
is  recognized  in  the  Old  Testament,  even  in  its  application  to 
brutes,  vs.  8-10.  Thirdly,  from  the  principles  of  commutative 
justice,  v.  11.  Fourthly,  from  the  fact  that  the  Corinthians 
recognized  this  right  in  the  case  of  other  teachers,  v.  12. 
Fifthly,  from  the  universal  recognition  of  the  principle  among 
all  nations.  Those  who  served  the  temple  were  supported 
from  the  temple,  v.  13.  Sixthly,  from  the  express  ordinance  of 
Christ,  who  had  ordained  that  those  who  preached  the  gospel 
should  live  by  the  gospel,  v.  14.  This  undoubted  right  Paul 
had  not  availed  himself  of,  and  he  was  determined,  especially 
at  Corinth,  not  to  avail  himself  of  it  in  the  future.  By  so  do 
ing  he  cut  off  occasion  to  question  his  motives,  and  gave  him 
self  a  ground  of  confidence  in  resisting  his  opponents  which 
he  was  determined  not  to  relinquish,  vs.  15-18.  This  was  not, 
however,  the  only  case  in  which  he  abstained  from  the  exer 
cise  of  his  rights  for  the  good  of  others.  He  accommodated 
himself  to  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  every  thing  indifferent,  that 
he  might  gain  the  more,  vs.  19-23.  Such  self-denial  the  hea 
then  exercised  to  gain  a  corruptible  crown — should  not  Chris 
tians  do  as  much  to  gain  a  crown  that  is  incorruptible  ?  With 
out  self-denial  and  effort  the  prize  of  their  high  calling  could 
never  be  attained,  vs.  24-27. 

1 .  Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?  am  I  not  free  ?  *  have  I 
not  seen  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?  are  not  ye  my  work 
in  the  Lord  ? 

The  order  of  the  first  two  of  these  questions  is  reversed  by 
most  editors  on  satisfactory  external  and  internal  evidence. 
Am  I  not  free  ?  That  is,  am  I  not  a  Christian,  invested  with 
all  the  liberties  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  people  free  ? 
Am  I  not  as  free  as  any  other  believer  to  regulate  my  conduct 
according  to  my  own  convictions  of  what  is  right ;  free  from 

*  The  MS.  A.  B.,  the  great  majority  of  the  ancient  versions,  and  many  of 
the  Fathers  put  fatvdepos  before  an6(rro\o^  which  is  the  natural  order  of  the 
words,  and  which,  after  Grieshach,  has  been  adopted  by  almost  all  editors. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  1.2.  153 

any  obligation  to  conform  to  the  opinions  or  prejudices  of 
other  men  ?  This,  however,  is  a  freedom  which  I  have  not 
availed  myself  of.  Nay  more,  Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?  Be 
sides  the  rights  which  belong  to  all  Christians,  have  I  not  all 
the  prerogatives  of  an  apostle  ?  Am  I  not  on  a  level  with  the 
chief  of  the  apostles  ?  Who  of  them  can  show  a  better  title 
to  the  office  ?  There  were  three  kinds  of  evidence  of  the 
apostleship.  1.  The  immediate  commission  from  Christ  in  the 
sight  of  witnesses,  or  otherwise  confirmed.  2.  Signs  and  won 
ders,  and  mighty  deeds,  2  Cor.  12, 12.  3.  The  success  of  their 
ministry.  No  man  could  be  an  apostle  who  had  not  seen  the 
Lord  Jesus  after  his  resurrection,  because  that  was  one  of  the 
essential  facts  of  which  they  were  to  be  the  witnesses,  Acts  1,22. 
Neither  could  any  man  be  an  apostle  who  did  not  receive  his 
knowledge  of  the  gospel  by  immediate  revelation  from  Christ, 
for  the  apostles  were  the  witnesses  also  of  his  doctrines,  Acts 
1,  8.  10,  39.  22, 15.  Gal.  1,  12.  The  necessity  of  this  immedi 
ate  mission  and  independent  knowledge  is  insisted  upon  at 
length  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  In  proof  of  his  apostle- 
ship  Paul  here  appeals  only  to  two  sources  of  evidence ;  first, 
to  his  having  seen  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  and  second,  to  the  success 
of  his  ministry.  Ye  are  my  work  in  the  Lord.  That  is, 
either,  you  in  the  Lord,  your  being  in  the  Lord  (i.  e.  your 
conversion),  is  my  work  ;  or,  the  words  (eV  /cvptw)  may  mean 
by  the  Lord,  i.  e.  by  his  co-operation.  The  former  explanation 
is  to  be  preferred,  as  the  apostle's  object  is  to  state  in  what 
sense  they  were  his  work.  It  was  as  being  in  the  Lord.  The 
connection  of  this  verse,  and  of  the  whole  chapter,  with  what 
precedes  is  obvious.  His  design  is  to  show  that  he  had  him 
self  acted  on  the  principle  which  he  urged  on  others.  Neither 
as  a  Christian  nor  as  an  apostle  had  he  insisted  upon  his  rights, 
without  regard  to  the  prejudices  of  others  or  the  good  of  the 
church. 

2.  If  I  be  not  an  apostle  unto  others,  yet  doubtless 
I  am  to  you  :  for  the  seal  of  mine  apostleship  are  ye  in 
the  Lord. 

If  to  others,  i.  e.  in  the  estimation  of  others,  I  be  not  an 
apostle,  surely  I  am  to  you.  Whatever  pretence  others  may 
have  to  question  my  apostleship,  you  certainly  can  have  none  ; 
for  the  seal  of  my  apostleshq)  are  ye  in  the  Lord.  Your  con 
version  is  the  seal  of  God  to  my  commission.  The  conversion 
i* 


154  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  2.3.4. 

of  men  is  a  divine  work,  and  those  by  whom  it  is  accomplished 
are  thereby  authenticated  as  divine  messengers.  It  is  as  much 
the  work  of  God  as  a  miracle,  and  therefore,  when  duly  au 
thenticated,  has  the  same  eifect  as  an  evidence  of  a  divine 
commission.  This,  although  valid  evidence,  and  as  such 
adduced  by  the  apostle,  is  nevertheless  very  liable  to  be 
abused.  First,  because  much  which  passes  for  conversion  is 
spurious ;  and  secondly,  because  the  evidence  of  success  is 
often  urged  in  behalf  of  the  errors  of  preachers,  when  that 
success  is  due  to  the  truth  which  they  preach.  Still  there  are 
cases  when  the  success  is  of  such  a  character,  so  undeniable 
and  so  great,  as  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  any  other  evi 
dence  of  a  divine  call.  Such  was  the  case  with  the  apostles, 
with  the  reformers,  and  with  many  of  our  modern  missionaries. 

3.  Mine  answer  to  them  that  do  examine  me  is  this : 

That  is,  what  precedes,  and  not  what  follows ;  for  what 
follows  is  no  answer  to  those  who  called  his  apostleship  in 
question.  Both  the  words  here  used,  (di/a/<p<W)  to  examine, 
and  (aTToXoyta),  apology,  or  answer,  are  forensic  terms.  Paul 
means  that  when  any  of  his  opponents  undertook  to  question 
him,  as  it  were,  judicially,  as  to  his  apostleship,  he  answered, 
4 1  have  seen  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  he  has  set  his  seal  to  my  com 
mission  by  the  success  with  wrhich  he  has  crowned  my  labours.' 
This  answer  satisfied  Peter,  James  and  John,  who  gave  to 
Paul  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  seeing  that  to  him  had 
been  committed  the  apostleship  unto  the  Gentiles,  Gal.  2,  8.  9. 

4.  Have  we  not  power  to  eat  and  drink  ? 

Power  here  as  above,  8,  9,  means  right.  Have  we  not  the 
right  to  eat  and  drink  ?  This,  taken  by  itself,  might  mean, 
4  Have  we  not  the  same  right  that  others  have  as  to  meats  and 
drinks  ?  All  distinctions  on  this  subject  are  abolished  as  much 
for  us  as  for  others.  Are  we  not  free  ? '  The  context  shows, 
however,  clearly  that  such  is  not  the  apostle's  meaning.  The 
right  in  question  is  that  which  he  goes  on  to  establish.  It  is 
the  right  to  abstain  from  working,  and  of  being  supported  by 
the  church.  Having  proved  his  apostleship,  he  proves  his 
right  to  be  supported,  and  then  shows  that  he  had  not  availed 
himself  of  that  right.  He  could,  therefore,  with  the  greater 
freedom  urge  the  Corinthians  to  forego  their  right  to  eat  of 
things  offered  to  idols  for  the  sake  of  their  weaker  brethren. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  5.  155 

5.  Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about  a  sister,  a 
wife,  as  well  as  other  apostles,  and  (as)  the  brethren 
of  the  Lord,  and  Cephas  ? 

This  is  an  amplification  of  the  preceding  verse.  Have  we 
not  the  power,  i.  e.  the  right.  To  lead  about,  a  form  of  expres 
sion  chosen  because  the  apostles  were  not  stationary  ministers, 
each  with  his  own  parish  or  diocese,  but  were  constantly  tra 
velling  from  place  to  place.  A.  sister,  i.  e.  a  Christian  woman. 
A.  wife,  this  determines  the  relation  which  this  travelling  com 
panion  sustained.  It  is  as  much  as  saying,  4A  sister  who 
is  a  wife.'  Many  of  the  Fathers  explain  this  passage  as  refer 
ring  to  the  custom  of  rich  women  attending  the  apostles  on 
their  journeys  in  order  to  minister  to  their  support.  In  this 
interpretation  they  are  followed  by  many  Romanists  in  order 
to  avoid  the  sanction  which  the  ordinary  and  only  legitimate 
interpretation  gives  to  the  marriage  of  the  clergy.  As  other 
apostles  ;  literally,  "  the  other  apostles."  This  does  not  neces 
sarily  imply  that  all  the  other  apostles  were  married  ;  but  the 
implication  is  that  as  a  body  they  were  married  men.  Ols- 
hausen  and  others  understand  the  apostle,  in  the  vs.  4-6,  as 
asserting  his  liberty  as  to  three  points  ;  1.  As  to  meats,  '  Have 
I  not  the  same  liberty  that  you  claim  as  to  eating  and  drink 
ing  ? '  2.  As  to  marriage,  '  Have  I  not  the  right  to  marry  ? ' 
3.  As  to  support.  But  this  introduces  more  into  the  text 
than  the  connection  warrants.  There  is  no  question  about 
the  right  of  marriage  alluded  to  in  the  context ;  and  what  fol 
lows  is  a  defence  neither  of  his  liberty  to  disregard  the  Jewish 
laws  about  meats  and  drinks,  nor  of  his  right  to  be  married. 

And  the  brethren  of  the  Lord.  Whether  these  were  the 
children  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  or  the  children  of  Mary,  the 
sister  of  our  Lord's  mother,  is  a  point  very  difficult  to  deter 
mine.  Tradition,  or  the  general  voice  of  the  church,  is  great 
ly  in  favour  of  the  latter  opinion.  The  former,  however,  is 
probably  the  opinion  embraced  by  a  majority  of  modern  com 
mentators.  The  discussion  of  this  question  belongs  properly 
to  the  evangelical  history.*  The  following  passages  may  be 
compared  on  this  subject:  Matt.  1,25.  12,46.  13,55.  Luke 

*  The  question  is  discussed  by  Neander,  in  his  Planting  of  the  Church,  p. 
554;  by  Winer,  in  Real  Worterbuch,  under  the  head  of  Jacobus ;  by  Prof. 
Schaf,  who  has  devoted  to  it  a  volume ;  und  by  many  other  writers,  ancient 
and  modern. 


156  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  5.6.7. 

2,  7.  John  2,  12.  Acts  1, 14.  Gal.  l,  19.  And  Cephas  ;  tliis 
is  the  name  by  which  Peter  is  called  whenever  he  is  mentioned 
by  Paul,  except  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  ;  and  Lachmann 
reads  Cephas  instead  of  Peter  in  Gal.  1,  18.  2,  9. 10.  14,  leav 
ing  Gal.  2,  8.  9  the  only  exception.  That  Peter  was  married 
is  clear  from  Matt.  8, 14.  Mark  1,  30. 

6.  Or  I  only  and  Barnabas,  have  we  not  power  to 
forbear  working  ? 

The  power  to  forbear  working  ;  literally,  the  right  of  not 
icorking.  '  Is  there  any  reason  why  I  and  Barnabas  should 
be  the  only  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  preachers  of  the  word 
are  to  be  supported  by  the  churches  ? '  From  this  it  appears 
that  Barnabas,  while  the  apostle's  missionary  companion,  fol 
lowed  his  example  in  working  with  his  own  hands,  that  he 
might  make  the  gospel  of  Christ  without  charge.  Paul  pro 
ceeds  to  demonstrate  the  right  in  question,  not  on  grounds 
peculiar  to  the  apostles  or  to  that  particular  age  of  the  church ; 
but  on  grounds  applicable  to  all  ministers  and  to  all  ages. 
His  first  argument  is  from  the  universally  recognized  principle 
that  labour  is  entitled  to  reward.  This  principle  is  illustrated 
in  the  following  verse. 

7.  Who  goeth  a  warfare   any  time   at   his   own 
charges  ?  who  planteth  a  vineyard,  and  eateth  not  of 
the  fruit  thereof  ?  or  who  feedeth  a  flock,  and  eateth 
not  of  the  milk  of  the  flock  ? 

Here  are  three  illustrations,  taken  from  the  common  occu 
pations  of  men,  of  the  principle  in  question.  The  soldier,  the 
agriculturist,  the  shepherd,  all  live  by  their  labour ;  why 
should  not  the  minister  ?  His  work  is  as  engrossing,  as  labo 
rious,  and  as  useful  as  theirs ;  why  should  not  it  meet  with  a 
similar  recompense  ?  Who  goeth  to  war,  i.  e.  who  serves  in 
war,  as  a  soldier,  at  his  own  charges  (iSt'ois  oi^wvtois),  on  his 
own  rations.  What  soldier  in  war  is  called  upon  to  support 
himself?  If  you  force  him  to  do  it,  you  make  him  a  robber  ; 
and  if  ministers  be  required  to  support  themselves,  the  danger 
is  that  they  will  be  forced  to  become  men  of  the  world.  It  is: 
not,  however,  the  evil  consequences,  so  much  as  the  injustice 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  7.8.9.  157 

of  such  a  course,  that  the  apostle  has  in  view.  What  is  true 
of  the  soldier  is  true  of  the  farmer  and  of  the  shepherd,  and 
of  every  other  class  of  men. 

8.  Say  I  these  things  as  a  man  ?  or  saith  not  the 
law  the  same  also  ? 


Say  I  these  things  as  a  man  f  This  phrase  (Kara 
ai/),  to  speak  as  a  man,  or  after  the  manner  of  men,  means 
in  general,  to  speak  as  men  are  wont  to  speak,  to  utter  their 
thoughts,  or  principles,  or  to  use  illustrations  derived  from 
their  customs.  Rom.  3,  5.  Gal.  3,  15.  comp.  Rom.  6,  19.  The 
apostle  means  here  to  ask  whether  it  was  necessary  to  appeal  to 
the  usages  of  men  in  support  of  the  principle  that  labour  should 
be  rewarded.  Does  not  the  law  also  say  the  same  f  i.  e.  docs 
not  the  word  of  God  sanction  the  same  principle  ?  The  law 
(6  VO'/AOS)  means  in  general  that  which  binds.  It  is  applied  to 
the  law  of  God,  however  revealed,  whether  in  the  heart,  the 
decalogue,  the  Pentateuch,  or  in  the  whole  Scriptures.  The 
context  must  determine  the  specific  reference  in  each  particu 
lar  case.  Here  the  law  of  Moses  is  intended. 

9.  For  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  Thou  shalt 
not  muzzle  the  mouth  of  the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the 
corn.  Doth  God  take  care  for  oxen  \ 

For  refers  to  the  answer  implied  to  the  preceding  question. 
c  Does  not  the  law  say  the  same  ?  It  does  :  for  it  is  written,' 
&c.  The  passage  quoted  is  found  in  Deut.  25,  4,  where  it  is 
forbidden  to  put  a  muzzle  on  the  oxen  which  draw  the  thresh 
ing  machine  over  the  corn,  or  which  tread  it  out  with  their 
feet;  as  both  methods  of  threshing  were  common  in  Palestine 
as  well  as  the  use  of  the  flail  or  rods.  Comp.  Is.  28,  28.  41,  15. 
Hosea  10,  11.  Doth  God  take  care  of  oxen?  It  is  perfectly 
certain  that  God  does  care  for  oxen  ;  for  he  feeds  the  young 
ravens  when  they  cry;  Job  38,  41.  Ps.  147,  9.  Matt.  6,  26. 
Luke  12,  24.  This,  therefore,  the  apostle  cannot  intend  to 
deny.  He  only  means  to  say  that  the  law  had  a  higher  refer 
ence.  Although  the  proximate  end  of  the  command  was  that 
the  labouring  brute  should  be  treated  justly,  yet  its  ultimate 
design  was  to  teach  men  the  moral  truth  involved  in  the  pre 
cept.  If  God  requires  that  even  the  ox,  which  spends  his 
strength  in  our  service,  should  not  be  defrauded  of  his  reward, 


158  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  9.  10. 

how  much  more  strict  will  he  be  in  enforcing  the  application 
of  the  same  principle  of  justice  to  his  rational  creatures. 

10.  Or  saith  he  (it)  altogether  for  our  sakes?  Tor 

our  sakes,  no  doubt,   (this)  is  written  :  that  he  that 

plougheth  should  plough  in  hope  ;  and  that  he  that 
thresheth  in  hope  should  be  partaker  of  his  hope. 

"  He  sayeth  it  altogether."  This  is  not  the  meaning  here  ; 
for  this  would  make  the  apostle  assert  that  the  command  in 
question  had  exclusive  reference  to  men.  The  word  (Travrws) 
should  be  rendered  assuredly,  as  in  Luke  4,  43.  Acts  18,  21. 
21,22,  and  frequently  elsewhere.  'This  command  was  as 
suredly  given,  says  the  apostle,  for  our  saJcesJ  i.  e.  for  the  sake 
of  man  —  not,  for  us  ministers,  or  us  apostles.  It  was  intended 
to  enforce  the  principle  that  labour  should  have  its  reward,  so 
that  men  may  labour  cheerfully.  That  (on)  ;  because.  '  It  is 
written  on  our  account,  because  he  that  ploughs  should  (6c/>eiAei, 
2  Cor.  12,  1  1,)  plough  in  hope,'  i.  e.  of  being  rewarded.  "  And 
he  that  threshes  should  thresh  in  hope  of  partaking  of  his 
hope,"  i.  e.  of  what  he  hoped  for.  The  text  is  here  doubtful. 
The  reading  preferred  by  most  editors  gives  a  simpler  form  to 
the  passage  *  —  c  He  that  thresheth  (should  thresh)  in  hope  of 
partaking,'  (tif  eX-ruSt  TOV  /xerex^v).  The  sense  is  the  same. 
Some  of  the  ancient,  and  not  a  few  of  the  most  distinguished 
modern  commentators  assume  that  Paul  gives  an  allegorical 
interpretation  to  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy.  They  under 
stand  him  to  say  that  the  passage  is  not  to  be  understood  of 
oxen,  but  of  us,  ministers.  '  This  command  was  given  on  ac 
count  of  us  ministers,  that  we  ploughers  might  plough  in  hope, 
and  we  threshers  might  thresh  in  hope.'  But  this  is  entirely 
foreign  from  the  manner  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  f 
They  never  argue  except  from  the  true  historical  sense  of 
Scripture.  Gal.  4,  21-31,  is  no  exception  to  this  remark  ;  for 
that  passage  is  an  illustration  and  not  an  argument. 


*  The  common  text  is  rf?s  ^ATn'Soy  UVTOV  ^rexflv  **  e'ATnSi.  Griesbach, 
Lachmann,  Scholz  and  Tischendorf  all  read  eV  c\uri§i  TOV  /xerexeiv,  on  the  au 
thority  of  the  MSS.  A.  B.  C. 

t  In  reference  to  this  mode  of  expounding  the  passage,  Calvin  says  :  Neque 
etiam  quasi  velit  allegorice  exponere  praeceptum  illud  :  quemadmodum  non- 
nulli  vertiginosi  spiritus  occasionem  hinc  arripiunt  omnia  ad  allegorias  trans- 
f'erendi  :  ita  ex  canibus  faciunt  homines,  ex  tirboribus  angclo,?,  et  totani  Scrip- 
turam  ludendo  pervertunt. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  11.  12.  13.  15& 

11.  If  we  have  sown  unto  you  spiritual  things,  (is 
it)  a  great  thing  if  we  shall  reap  your  carnal  things  ? 

That  is,  if  we  have  bestowed  on  you  one  class  of  benefits, 
is  it  unreasonable  that  we  should  receive  from  you  another 
class  ?  And  if  the  benefits  which  we  bestow  are  spiritual, 
such  as  knowledge,  faith  and  hope,  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and 
therefore  of  infinite  value,  is  it  much  that  we  should  derive 
from  you  carnal  things,  i.  e.  things  necessary  for  the  support 
of  the  body?  On  every  principle  of  commutative  justice,  the 
minister's  right  to  a  support  must  be  conceded. 

12.  If  others  be  partakers  of  (this)  power  over  you, 
(are)  not  we  rather?     Nevertheless  we  have  not  used 
this  power  ;  but  suffer  all  things,  lest  we  should  hinder 
the  gospel  of  Christ. 

This  is  an  argument  directed  specially  to  the  Corinthians. 
They  had  recognized  in  other  teachers  the  right  to  a  support ; 
they  could  not,  therefore,  with  any  show  of  reason,  deny  it  to 
the  apostle.  This  power  over  you  (r^s  v/xw?'  e£ovo-ias),  i.  e.  the 
right  of  which  you  are  the  objects.  For  this  use  of  the  geni 
tive,  (power  of  you,  for  power  over  you),  compare  Matt.  10,  1. 
John  17,  2.  Undisputable  as  this  right  was  in  the  case  of 
Paul,  he  did  not  exercise  it,  but  suffered  all  things,  i.  e.  en 
dured  all  kinds  of  privations.  The  word  means  to  bear  in  si 
lence.  Lest  loe  should  hinder  (place  any  hinderance  in  the 
way  of,)  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Under  the  circumstances  iii 
which  Paul  Avas  placed,  surrounded  by  implacable  enemies,  it 
would  have  hindered  the  gospel  had  he  done  any  thing  which 
gave  the  least  ground  to  question  the  purity  of  his  motives. 
He  was  willing  to  suifer  any  thing  rather  than  to  give  his  op 
ponents  the  slightest  pretext  for  their  opposition  to  him. 

13.  Do  ye  not  know  that  they  which  minister  about 
holy  things  live  (of  the  things)  of  the  temple  ?  and  they 
which  wait  at  the  altar  are  partakers  with  the  altar  ? 

What  Paul  here  says  is  true  of  all  religions,  though  his 
reference  is  probably  only  to  the  Jewish.  Those  which  min 
ister  about  holy  things  (ol  ra  tepa  epya.£o/xevoi) ;  those  who  per 
form  the  sacred  services,  i.  e.  those  who  offer  sacrifices.  Eat 


160  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  13.  14.  15. 

of  the  temple,  i.  e.  they  derive  their  support  from  the  temple, 
Those  attending  the  altar  share  with  the  altar,  i.  e.  the  priests 
receive  a  portion  of  the  sacrifices  offered  on  the  altar.  If  this 
was  an  institution  ordained  by  God  himself,  under  the  old  dis 
pensation,  it  has  the  sanction  of  divine  authority.  The  apos 
tle's  concluding  and  conclusive  argument  on  this  subject  is 
contained  in  the  following  verse. 

14.  Even  so  hath  the  Lord  ordained  that  they 
which  preach  the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel. 

Even  so  (oirrw  /OH'),  so  also,  i.  e.  as  God  had  ordained  under 
the  Old  Testament,  so  also  the  Lord  (i.  e.  Christ)  had  ordained 
under  the  New.  Christ  has  made  the  same  ordinance  respect 
ing  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  that  God  made  respecting  the 
priests  of  the  law.  The  Lord  hath  ordained  that,  &c.,  (Ste- 
Ta£e  rots),  he  commanded  those  loho  preach,  &c.  It  was  a  com 
mand  to  ministers  themselves  not  to  seek  their  support  from 
secular  occupations ;  but  to  live  of  the  gospel,  as  the  priests 
lived  of  the  temple.  Matt.  10,  10.  Luke  10,  8.  This  is  the 
law  of  Christ,  obligatory  on  ministers  and  people ;  on  the  lat 
ter  to  give,  and  on  the  former  to  seek  a  support  from  the 
church  and  not  from  worldly  avocations.  There  are  circum 
stances  under  which,  as  the  case  of  Paul  shows,  this  command 
ceases  to  be  binding  on  preachers.  These  are  exceptions,  to 
be  justified,  each  on  its  own  merits ;  the  rule,  as  a  rule,  re 
mains  in  force.  If  this  subject  were  viewed  hi  this  light,  both 
by  preachers  and  people,  there  Avould  be  little  difficulty  in  sus 
taining  the  gospel,  and  few  ministers  would  be  distracted  by 
worldly  pursuits. 

15.  But  I  have  used  none  of  these  things  :  neither 
have  I  written  these  things,  that  it  should  be  so  done 
unto  me :  for  (it  were)  better  for  me  to  die,  than  that 
any  man  should  make  my  glorying  void. 

None  of  these  things,  may  refer  to  the  various  arguments 
above  mentioned.  '  I  have  availed  myself  of  none  of  these 
arguments ; '  or,  it  may  refer  to  the  right  itself,  which  was 
manifold,  the  right  of  a  recompense  for  labour,  v.  1 ;  the  right 
to  an  equivalent  for  benefits  conferred,  v.  1 1 ;  the  right  to  be 
treated  as  other  ministers  were,  v.  12 ;  the  right  to  be  dealt 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  15.16.17.  101 

with  according  to  the  law  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
of  Christ  in  the  New.  '  I  have  used  none  of  these  rights.* 
Neither  have  I  written  these  things  that  it  should  (in  future) 
be  so  done  (i.  e.  according  to  what  I  have  written)  unto  me 
(ei/  e/Aot),  in  my  case.  Paul  had  no  intention  of  changing  his 
course  in  this  matter.  The  reason  for  this  determination  he 
immediately  assigns.  For  it  were  better  for  me  to  die  than 
that  any  man  should  make  my  glorying  void,  that  is,  deprive 
nie  of  my  ground  of  glorying.  What  enabled  Paul  to  face  his 
enemies  with  joyful  confidence,  was  his  disinterested  self-deni 
al  in  preaching  the  gospel  without  reward.  And  this  he  calls 
his  (Kcu/^/x-a),  or  ground  of  boasting.  That  this,  and  not 
merely  preaching  the  gospel,  was  the  proof  of  his  integrity  to 
which  he  could  confidently  refer,  he  shows  in  the  following 
verses. 

16.  For  though  I  preach  the  gospel,  I  have  nothing 
to  glory  of :  for  necessity  is  laid  upon  me ;  yea,  woe  is 
unto  me,  if  I  preach  not  the  gospel ! 

The  reason  why  it  was  so  important  to  him  to  refuse  all 
remuneration  as  a  minister  was,  that  although  he  preached  the 
gospel  that  was  no  (Kcur^/^a),  ground  of  boasting  to  him. 
That  he  was  bound  to  do,  yea,  woe  was  denounced  against 
him  unless  he  did  preach  it.  Nothing  could  be  a  ground  of 
boasting,  but  something  which  he  was  free  to  do,  or  not  to  do. 
He  was  free  to  receive  or  to  refuse  a  remuneration  for  preach 
ing  ;  and  therefore  his  refusing  to  do  so  was  a  ground  of  glo 
rying,  that  is,  a  proof  of  integrity  to  which  he  could  with 
confidence  appeal. 

17.  For  if  I  do  this  thing  willingly,  I  have  a  reward : 
but  if  against  my  will,  a  dispensation  (of  the  gospel)  is 
committed  unto  me. 

This  is  the  proof  that  preaching  was  no  ground  of  boasting. 
If  he  preached  willingly,  i.  e.  if  it  were  optional  with  him  to 
preach  or  not  to  preach,  then  it  would  be  a  ground  of  boast-, 
ing ;  but  if  he  did  it  unwillingly,  i.  e.  if  it  was  not  optional 
with  him,  (as  was  in  fact  the  case),  he  was  only  discharging 
an  official  duty,  and  had  nothing  to  boast  of.  That  Paul 
preached  the  gospel  willingly,  that  he  esteemed  it  his  highest 


162  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  17. 


joy  and  glory,  is  abundantly  evident  from  his  history  and 
his  writings/  Rom.  1,5.  11,13.  15,15.16.  1  Cor.  15,  9. 
10.  Gal.  1,  15.  16.  Eph.  3,  8.  The  difference,  therefore,  here 
expressed  between  (CKCUV  and  OLKCOV),  witting  and  unwitting,  is 
not  the  difference  between  cheerfully  and  reluctantly,  but  be 
tween  optional  and  obligatory.  He  says  he  had  a  dispensation 
or  stewardship  (otKovo/ua)  committed  to  him.  These  stewards 
(oiKovdjaoi)  were  commonly  slaves.  There  is  a  great  difference 
between  what  a  slave  does  in  obedience  to  a  command,  and 
what  a  man  volunteers  to  do  of  his  own  accord.  And  this  is 
the  precise  difference  to  which  the  apostle  here  refers.  The 
slave  may  feel  honoured  by  the  command  of  his  master,  and 
obey  him  gladly,  still  it  is  but  a  service.  So  Paul  was  com 
manded  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  he  did  it  writh  his  whole 
heart  ;  but  he  was  not  commanded  to  refuse  to  receive  a  sup 
port  from  the  churches.  The  former,  therefore,  was  not  a 
ground  of  boasting,  not  a  thing  for  which  he  could  claim  the 
reward  of  special  confidence  ;  the  latter  was.  He  could  ap 
peal  to  it  as  a  proof,  not  only  of  his  obedience,  but  of  the 
purity  of  the  motive  which  prompted  that  obedience.  A  phy 
sician  may  attend  the  sick  from  the  highest  motives,  though 
he  receives  a  remuneration  for  his  services.  But  when  he  at 
tends  the  poor  gratuitously,  though  the  motives  may  be  no 
higher,  the  evidence  of  their  purity  is  placed  beyond  question. 
Paul's  ground  of  glorying,  therefore,  was  not  preaching,  for 
that  was  a  matter  of  obligation  ;  but  his  preaching  gratuitous 
ly,  which  was  altogether  optional.  If,  says  he,  my  preaching 
is  optional,  I  have  a  reward  ;  not  in  the  sense  of  merit  in  the 
sight  of  God,  but  in  the  general  sense  of  recompense.  He 

gained  something  by  it.  He  gained  the  confidence  even  of 
is  enemies.  But  as  preaching  was  not  optional  but  obligato 
ry,  he  did  not  gain  confidence  by  it.  Mere  preaching,  there 
fore,  was  not  a  (Kav^/xa)  ground  of  boasting,  but  preaching 
gratuitously  was.  A  dispensation  of  the  gospel  is  committed 
to  me  /  in  the  Greek  it  is  simply,  '  /  am  intrusted  with  a  stew 
ardship  (comp.  Gal.  2,  7,  i.  e.  an  office),  which  I  am  bound  to 
discharge.  I  am  in  this  matter  a  mere  servant.'  The  princi 
ple  on  which  the  apostle's  argument  is  founded  is  recognized 
by  our  Lord,  when  he  said,  "  When  ye  shall  have  done  all 
those  things  which  are  commanded  you,  say,  We  are  unprofit 
able  servants  :  we  have  done  that  which  was  our  duty  to  do," 
Luke  17,  10. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  18.19.  163 

18.  What  is  my  reward  then  ?  (Verily)  that,  when 
I  preach  the  gospel,  I  may  make  the  gospel  of  Christ 
without  charge,  that  I  abuse  not  my  power  in  the 
gospel. 

To  do  what  he  was  commanded  was  no  ground  of  re 
ward  ;  but  to  preach  the  gospel  without  charge  was  something 
of  which  he  could  boast,  i.  e.  make  a  ground  of  confidence. 
WJiat  then  is  my  reward?  i.  e.  what  constitutes  my  reward? 
in  the  sense  explained  ;  what  gives  me  a  ground  of  boasting  ? 
The  answer  follows,  (Iva  being  used  instead  of  the  exegetical 
infinitive  ;  comp.  John  15,  8.  1  John  4,  17.)  that  preaching  I 
should  make  the  gospel  free  of  charge.  In  other  words,  that 
I  should  not  use  my  right  in  the  gospel.  In  other  words, 
Paul's  reward  was  to  sacrifice  himself  for  others.  He  speaks 
of  his  being  permitted  to  serve  others  gratuitously  as  a  re 
ward.  And  so  it  was,  not  only  because  it  was  an  honour  and 
happiness  to  be  allowed  to  serve  Christ  in  thus  serving  his 
people ;  but  also  because  it  secured  him  the  confidence  of 
those  among  whom  he  laboured  by  proving  his  disinterested 
ness.  The  common  version,  that  I  abuse  not^  although  agree 
able  to  the  common  meaning  of  /caraxpaojacu,  is  not  consistent 
with  the  context,  and  is  not  demanded  by  the  usage  of  the 
word;  see  7,  31.  It  was  not  the  abuse,  but  the  use  of  his 
right  to  be  supported,  that  the  apostle  had  renounced. 

19.  For  though  I  be  free  from  all  (men),  yet  have 
I  made  myself  servant  unto  all,  that  I  might  gain  the 
more. 

The  apostle's  self-denial  and  accommodation  of  himself  to 
the  weakness  and  prejudices  of  others,  was  not  confined  to  the 
point  of  which  he  had  been  speaking.  He  constantly  acted 
upon  the  principle  of  abstaining  in  things  indifferent,  from  in 
sisting  on  his  rights.  Though  free  from  all,  i.  e.  independent 
of  all  men,  and  under  no  obligation  to  conform  my  conduct  to 
their  opinions,  I  subjected  myself  to  all.  In  what  way  he  did 
this,  and  to  what  extent,  is  explained  by  what  follows.  His 
motive  in  thus  accommodating  himself  to  others,  was,  that  he 
might  gain  the  more,  or  the  greater  number,  the  majority ; 
comp.  10,  5.  No  one  was  more  yielding  in  matters  of  indiffer 
ence,  no  one  was  more  unyielding  in  matters  of  principle  than 


164  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  19.20. 

this  apostle.  So  long  as  things  indifferent  were  regarded  as 
such,  he  was  ready  to  accommodate  himself  to  the  most  un 
reasonable  prejudices ;  but  when  they  were  insisted  upon  as 
matters  of  necessity,  he  would  not  give  place,  110  not  for  an 
hour,  Gal.  2,  5. 

20.  And  unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I 
might  gain  the  Jews  ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law, 
as  under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are 
under  the  law ; 

To  the  Jews  he  became  as  a  Jew,  i.  e.  he  acted  as  they 
acted,  he  conformed  to  their  usages,  observed  the  law,  avow 
ing  at  the  same  time  that  he  did  it  as  a  matter  of  accommoda 
tion.  Wherever  the  fair  inference  from  his  compliance  would 
have  been  that  he  regarded  these  Jewish  observances  as  neces 
sary,  he  strenuously  refused  compliance.  His  conduct  in  re 
lation  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  before  referred  to,  shows  the 
principle  on  which  he  acted.  The  former  he  circumcised,  be 
cause  it  was  regarded  as  a  concession.  The  latter  he  refused 
to  circumcise,  because  it  was  demanded  as  a  matter  of  neces 
sity.  There  are  two  things,  therefore,  to  be  carefully  observed 
in  all  cases  of  concession  to  the  opinions  and  practices  of 
others :  first,  that  the  point  conceded  be  a  matter  of  indiffer 
ence  ;  for  Paul  never  yielded  in  the  smallest  measure  to  any 
thing  which  was  in  itself  wrong.  In  this  his  conduct  was  di 
rectly  the  opposite  to  that  of  those  who  accommodate  them 
selves  to  the  sins  of  men,  or  to  the  superstitious  observances 
of  false  religions.  And  secondly,  that  the  concession  does  not 
involve  any  admission  that  what  is  in  fact  indifferent  is  a  mat 
ter  of  moral  obligation.  The  extent  to  which  Paul  went  to 
conciliate  the  Jews  may  be  learnt  from  what  is  recorded  in 
Acts  21,  18-27. 

To  those  under  the  law.  These  were  not  converted  Jews, 
because  they  were  already  gained  to  the  gospel,  and  did  not 
need  to  be  won,  which  is  the  sense  in  which  the  expression  to 
gain  is  used  in  this  verse,  as  he  had  just  spoken  of  gaining  the 
Jews.  Perhaps  those  under  the  laic,  as  distinguished  from 
Jews,  were  proselytes,  i.  e.  Gentiles  who  had  embraced  Juda 
ism.  But  most  of  these  proselytes  were  not  strictly  under  the 
law.  They  acknowledged  Jehovah  to  be  the  only  true  God, 
but  did  not  subject  themselves  to  the  Mosaic  institutions.  The 
common  opinion  is,  that  this  clause  is  only  explanatory  of  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  20.21.  165 

former,  c  To  the  Jews,  i.  e.  to  those  under  the  law,  I  became 
as  a  Jew,  i.  e.  as  one  under  the  law.' 

"  Not  being  myself  under  the  law,"  /x>)  a>v  avro?  VTTO  vo/^ov. 
This  clause  happened  to  be  omitted  from  the  Elziver  edition 
of  the  Greek  Testament  from  which  our  translation  was  made, 
and  therefore  fails  in  the  common  English  version.  It  is 
found,  however,  in  all  the  more  ancient  manuscripts,  in  many 
of  the  fathers  and  early  versions,  and  is  therefore  adopted  by 
most  modern  editors.  The  internal  evidence  is  also  in  its 
favour.  It  was  important  for  Paul  to  say  that  although  acting 
as  under  the  law,  he  was  not  under  it ;  because  it  was  a  fun 
damental  principle  of  the  gospel  which  he  preached,  that  be 
lievers  are  freed  from  the  law.  "  We  are  not  under  law,  but 
under  grace,"  Rom.  6,  14.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that 
his  compliance  with  the  Jewish  law  should  be  recognized  as  a 
matter  of  voluntary  concession. 

21.  To  them  that  are  without  law,  as  without  law, 
(being  not  without  law  to  God,  but  under  the  law  to 
Christ,)  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  without  law. 

Those  without  law  were  the  heathen,  who  had  no  written 
revelation  as  the  rule  of  their  conduct;  comp.  Rom.  2,  12, 
As,  however,  the  word  (avo/xos),  icithout  law,  means  also  reck 
less,  regardless  of  moral  restraints,  Paul  is  careful  to  explain 
in  what  sense  he  acted  as  without  law.  When  among  the 
Gentiles  he  did  not  conform  to  the  Jewish  law  ;  in  that  sense, 
he  was  without  law ;  but  he  did  not  act  as  without  law  to 
God,  i.  e.  without  regard  to  the  obligation  of  the  moral  law ; 
but  as  under  law  to  Christ,  i.  e.  as  recognizing  his  obligation 
to  obey  Christ,  whose  will  is  the  highest  rule  of  duty.  In 
other  words,  he  was  not  under  the  Jewish  law ;  but  he  was 
under  the  moral  law.  He  disregarded  the  Jewish  law  that  he 
might  gain  those  without  law,  i.  e.  the  Gentiles.  When  in 
Jerusalem,  he  conformed  to  the  Jewish  law  ;  when  in  Antioch 
he  refused  to  do  so,  and  rebuked  Peter  for  acting  as  a  Jew 
among  the  Gentiles,  Gal.  2,  11-21.  It  would  have  greatly  im 
peded,  if  not  entirely  prevented,  the  progress  of  the  gospel 
among  the  heathen,  had  it  been  burdened  with  the  whole 
weight  of  the  Jewish  ceremonies  and  restrictions.  Peter  him 
self  had  told  even  the  Jews  that  the  Mosaic  law  was  a  yoke 
which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  had  been  able  to  bear, 
Acts  15,  10.  And  Paul  said  to  the  Galatians,  that  he  had  re- 


166  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  21.22.23. 

sisted  the   Judaizers,  in  order  that  the  truth  of  the  gospel 
might  remain  with  them,  Gal.  2,  5. 

22.  To  the  weak  became  I  as  weak,  that  I  might 
gain  the  weak  :  I  am  made  all  things  to  all  (men),  that 
I  might  by  all  means  save  some. 

By  the  weak  many  understand  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  con 
sidered  under  another  aspect,  i.  e.  as  destitute  of  the  power  to 
comprehend  and  appreciate  the  gospel.  The  only  reason  foi 
this  interpretation  is  the  assumption  that  to  gain  in  this  con 
nection  must  mean  to  convert,  or  make  Christians  of,  and 
therefore,  those  to  be  gained  must  be  those  who  were  not 
Christians.  But  the  word  means  merely  to  win  over,  to  bring 
to  proper  views,  and  therefore  may  be  used  in  reference  to 
weak  and  superstitious  believers  as  well  as  of  unconverted 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  As  in  the  preceding  chapter  the  weak 
mean  weak  Christians,  men  who  were  not  clear  and  decided 
in  their  views,  and  as  the  very  design  of  the  whole  discussion 
was  to  induce  the  more  enlightened  Corinthian  Christians  to 
accommodate  themselves  to  those  weaker  brethren,  it  is  alto 
gether  more  natural  to  understand  it  in  the  same  way  here. 
Paul  holds  himself  up  as  an  example.  To  the  weak  he  became 
as  weak ;  he  accommodated  himself  to  their  prejudices  that 
he  might  win  them  over  to  better  views.  And  he  wished  the 
Corinthians  to  do  the  same.  I  am  made  all  things  to  all  men. 
This  generalizes  all  that  had  been  said.  It  was  not  to  this  or 
that  class  of  men,  that  he  was  thus  conciliatory,  but  to  all 
classes,  and  as  to  all  matters  of  indifference ;  that  he  might  at 
all  events  (TTOLVTWS)  save  some. 

23.  And  this  I  do  for  the  gospel's  sake,  that  I 
might  be  partaker  thereof  with  (you). 

This  I  do  /  or,  according  to  the  reading  now  generally 
adopted  (iravra  instead  of  TOVTO),  I  do  all  things  ;  c  my  whole 
course  of  action,  not  merely  in  thus  accommodating  myself  to 
the  prejudices  of  others,  but  in  every  thing  else,  is  regulated 
for  the  promotion  of  the  gospel.'  This  gives  a  better  sense  ; 
for  to  say,  This  I  do,  would  be  only  to  repeat  what  is  included 
in  the  preceding  verse.  Paul  lived  for  the  gospel.  He  did  all 
things  for  it.  That  I  may  be  a  joint-partaker  thereof,  i.  e.  a 
partaker  with  others ;  not,  with  you,  as  there  is  nothing  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  23.24.25.  167 

confine  the  statement  to  the  Corinthians.  To  be  a  partaker 
of  the  gospel,  means,  of  course,  to  be  a  partaker  of  its  bene 
fits;  the  subject  of  the  redemption  which  it  announces.  It  is 
necessary  to  live  for  the  gospel,  in  order  to  be  a  partaker  of 
the  gospel. 

24.  Know  ye  not  that  they  which  run  in  a  race 
run  all,  but  one  receiveth  the  prize  ?     So  run,  that  ye 
may  obtain. 

An  exhortation  to  self-denial  and  exertion,  clothed  in  fig 
urative  language.  As  the  exhortation  is  addressed  principally 
to  the  Gentile  converts,  the  imagery  used  is  derived  from  the 
public  games  with  which  they  were  so  familiar.  These  games, 
the  Olympian  and  Isthmian,  the  latter  celebrated  every  third 
summer  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Corinth,  were  the  occasions 
for  the  concourse  of  the  people  from  all  parts  of  Greece.  The 
contests  in  them  excited  the  greatest  emulation  in  all  classes 
of  the  inhabitants.  Even  the  Roman  emperors  did  not  refuse 
to  enter  the  lists.  To  be  a  victor  was  to  be  immortalized  with 
such  immortality  as  the  breath  of  man  can  give.  To  Greeks, 
therefore,  no  allusions  could  be  more  intelligible,  or  more 
effective,  than  those  to  these  institutions,  which  have  nothing 
to  answer  to  them  in  modern  times. 

Know  ye  not.  He  took  for  granted  they  were  familiar 
with  the  rules  of  the  games  to  which  he  referred.  That  those 
running  in  a  race  /  literally  in  the  stadium  or  circus  in  which 
the  games  were  celebrated,  so  called  because  it  was  a  stadium 
(a  little  more  than  two  hundred  yards)  in  length.  All  run, 
but  one  obtains  the  prize.  It  was  not  enough  to  start  in  this 
race ;  it  was  not  enough  to  persevere  almost  to  the  end ;  it 
was  necessary  to  outrun  all  competitors  and  be  first  at  the 

foal.  But  one  took  the  prize.  /Syo  run  that  ye  may  obtain. 
'hat  is,  run  as  that  one  runs,  in  order  that  ye  may  obtain. 
The  greatest  self-denial  in  preparation,  and  the  greatest  effort 
in  the  contest,  were  necessary  to  success.  In  the  Christian 
race  there  are  many  victors ;  but  the  point  of  the  exhortation 
is,  that  all  should  run  as  the  one  victor  ran  in  the  Grecian 
games. 

25.  And  every  man  that  striveth  for  the  mastery  is 
temperate  in  all  things.     Now  they  (do  it)  to  obtain  a 
corruptible  crown  ;  but  we  an  incorruptible. 


168  I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  25.26.27. 

Every  one  who  striveth,  &c.  (vras  6  dya>vi£ojaevos)  every  one 
accustomed  to  contend,  i.  e.  every  professional  athlete.  The 
word  includes  all  kinds  of  contests,  whether  in  running, 
wrestling  or  fighting.  Is  temperate  in  all  things,  i.  e.  controls 
himself  as  to  all  things.  He  exercises  self-denial  in  diet,  in 
bodily  indulgences,  and  by  painful  and  protracted  discipline. 
The  ancient  writers  abound  in  rules  of  abstinence  and  exercise, 
to  be  observed  by  competitors  in  preparation  for  the  games. 
They  indeed  for  a  corruptible  croicn,  we  for  an  incorruptible. 
If  the  heathen  submitted  to  such  severe  discipline  to  gain  a 
wreath  of  olive  or  garland  of  pine  leaves,  shall  not  Christians 
do  as  much  for  a  crown  of  righteousness  which  fadeth  not 
away  ? 

26.  I  therefore  so  run,  not  as  uncertainly;  so  fight 
I,  not  as  one  that  beateth  the  air : 

I  therefore,  i.  e.  because  so  much  effort  is  necessary  to  suc 
cess.  So  run,  i.  e.  run  not  in  such  a  manner  as  one  who  runs 
uncertainly  (dS>JAws).  That  may  mean  unconspicuously,  not 
as  one  unseen,  but  as  one  on  whom  all  eyes  are  fixed.  Or  more 
probably  the  idea  is,  not  as  one  runs  who  is  uncertain  where 
or  for  what  he  is  running.  A  man  who  runs  uncertain  as  to 
his  course  or  object,  runs  without  spirit  or  effort.  So  fight  I. 
The  allusion  is  here  to  boxing,  or  fighting  with  the  fist.  Not 
as  one  beating  the  air.  Here  again  the  figure  is  doubtful.  A 
man  who  is  merely  exercising,  without  an  antagonist,  may  be 
said  to  smite  the  air.  A  man  puts  forth  little  strength  in  such 
a  sham  conflict.  Or  the  man  who  aims  at  his  antagonist,  and 
fails  to  hit  him,  smites  the  air.  This  is  the  better  explanation. 
VIKGIL  has  the  same  figure  to  express  the  same  idea.  He  says 
of  a  boxer  who  missed  his  antagonist,  "  vires  in  yentum  effu- 
dit."  jEn.  v.  446.  In  either  way  the  meaning  is  the  same. 
Nothing  is  accomplished.  The  effort  is  in  vain.  In  14,  9,  the 
apostle  says  of  those  who  speak  in  an  unknown  tongue,  that 
they  speak  into  the  air.  That  is,  they  speak  to  no  effect. 

27.  But  I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring  (it)  into 
subjection:   lest   that   by  any  means,   when   I   have 
preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be  a  cast-away. 

In  opposition  to  the  fruitless  or  objectless  fighting  just  de 
scribed,  Paul  says,  I  keep  under  my  body ;  literally  I  bruise 


I.  CORINTHIANS  9,  27.  169 


my  body,  (virwrnd^  to  smite  under  the  eye,  to  bruise,  to 
smite,  Luke  18,  5.)  His  antagonist  was  his  body,  which  he  so 
smote,  i.  e.  so  dealt  with,  as  to  bring  it  into  subjection  /  liter 
ally,  to  lead  about  as  a  slave.  Perhaps  in  reference  to  the 
custom  of  the  victor  leading  about  his  conquered  antagonist 
as  a  servant  ;  though  this  is  doubtful.  The  body,  as  in  part 
the  seat  and  organ  of  sin,  is  used  for  our  whole  sinful  nature. 
Rom.  8,  13.  It  was  not  merely  his  sensual  nature  that  Paul 
endeavoured  to  bring  into  subjection,  but  all  the  evil  propensi 
ties  and  passions  of  his  heart.  Lest  having  preached  to  others 
(Kvjpvgas).  Perhaps  the  apostle  means  to  adhere  to  the  figure 
and  say,  c  Lest  having  acted  the  part  of  a  herald,  (whose  office 
at  the  Grecian  games  was  to  proclaim  the  rules  of  the  contest 
and  to  summon  the  competitors  or  combatants  to  the  lists,) 
he  himself  should  be  judged  unworthy  of  the  prize.'  As,  how- 
ever,^the  word  is  so  often  used  for  preaching  the  gospel,  he 
may  intend  to  drop  the  figure  and  say,  c  He  made  these  strenu 
ous  exertions,  lest,  having  preached  the  gospel  to  others,  he 
himself  should  become  (dSo/a/xos)  a  reprobate,  one  rejected.' 
What  an  argument  and  what  a  reproof  is  this  !  The  reckless 
and  listless  Corinthians  thought  they  could  safely  indulge 
themselves  to  the  very  verge  of  sin,  while  this  devoted  apos8e 
considered  himself  as  engaged  in  a  life-struggle  for  his  salva 
tion.  ^  This  same  apostle,  however,  who  evidently  acted  on  the 
principle  that  the  righteous  scarcely  are  saved,  and  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  sufiereth  violence,  at  other  times  breaks 
out  in  the  most  joyful  assurance  of  salvation,  and  says  that  he 
was  persuaded  that  nothing  in  heaven,  earth  or  hell  could  ever 
separate  him  from  the  love  of  God.  Rom.  8,  38.  39,  The  one 
state  of  mind  is  the  necessary  condition  of  the  other.  It  is 
only  those  who  are  conscious  of  this  constant  and  deadly 
struggle  with  sin,  to  whom  this  assurance  is  given.  In  the 
very  same  breath  Paul  says,  "  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  ;  " 
and,  "  Thanks  be  to  God  who  giveth  us  the  victory,"  Rom.  7, 
24.  25.  It  is  the  indolent  and  self-indulgent  Christian  who  is 
always  in  doubt. 


170  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  1. 


CHAPTER  X. 

A  continuation  of  the  exhortation  to  self-denial  and  caution,  vs.  1-13.  Ex 
press  prohibition  of  joining  in  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  heathen,  vs. 
14-22.  Particular  directions  as  to  the  use  of  meat  sacrificed  to  idols,  vs. 
23-33. 

The  necessity  of  self-denial  argued  from  the  case  of  the 
Israelites.    Vs.  1-13. 

AT  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter  the  apostle  had  exhorted 
his  readers  to  self-denial  and  effort,  in  order  to  secure  the 
crown  of  life.  He  here  enforces  that  exhortation,  by  showing 
how  disastrous  had  been  the  want  of  such  self-control  in  the 
case  of  the  Israelites.  They  had  been  highly  favoured  as  well 
as  we.  They  had  been  miraculously  guided  by  the  pillar  of 
cloud ;  they  had  been  led  through  the  Red  Sea ;  they  had 
been  fed  with  manna  from  heaven,  and  with  water  from  the 
rock ;  and  yet  the  great  majority  of  them  perished,  vs.  1-5. 
This  is  a  solemn  warning  to  Christians  not  to  give  way  to 
temptation,  as  the  Israelites  did,  v.  6.  That  is,  not  to  be  led 
into  idolatry,  v.  7,  nor  into  fornication,  v.  8,  nor  into  tempting 
Christ,  v.  9,  nor  into  murmuring,  v.  10.  In  all  these  points 
the  experience  of  the  Israelites  was  a  warning  to  Christians ; 
and  therefore  those  who  thought  themselves  secure  should 
take  heed  lest  they  fall,  vs.  1 1. 12.  God  is  merciful,  and  would 
not  suffer  them  to  be  too  severely  tempted,  v.  13. 

1.  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should 
be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the 
cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea ; 

Moreover.  The  true  reading  is  not  (8e)  moreover,  but  (yap) 
/or,  which  marks  the  connection  with  what  precedes.  '  We 
must  use  self-denial  and  effort ;  for,  brethren,  our  fathers,  not 
withstanding  all  they  experienced,  perished.'  I  would  not 
have  you  ignorant,  Rom.  1, 10.  11,25,  a  formula  used  when 
something  specially  important  is  to  be  presented.  That  (not 
how  that).  All  our  fathers.  The  emphasis  is  on  all.  'All 
our  fathers  left  Egypt ;  Caleb  and  Joshua  alone  entered  the 
promised  land.'  All  run,  but  one.  obtains  the  prize.  The  his 
tory  of  the  church  affords  no  incident  better  suited  to  enforce 
the  necessity  of  guarding  against  false  security,  than  that  se- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  1.2.  171 

lected  by  the  apostle.  The  Israelites  doubtless  felt,  as  they 
stood  on  the  other  side  of  the  Red  Sea,  that  all  danger  was 
over,  and  that  their  entrance  into  the  land  of  promise°was  se 
cured.  They  had  however  a  journey  beset  with  dangers  be 
fore  them,  and  perished  because  they  thought  there  was  no 
need  of  exertion.  So  the  Corinthians,  when  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  gospel,  thought  heaven  secure.  Paul  re 
minds  them  that  they  had  only  entered  on  the  way,  and  would 
certainly  perish  unless  they  exercised  constant  selfdenial.  Our 
fathers.  Abraham  is  our  father,  though  we  are  not  his  natural 
descendants.  ^  And  the  Israelites  were  the  fathers  of  the  Co 
rinthian  Christians,  although  most  of  them  were  Gentiles. 
Although  this  is  true,  it  is  probable  that  the  apostle,  although 
writing  to  a  church,  many,  if  not  most,  of  whose  members 
were  of  heathen  origin,  speaks  as  a  Jew  to  Jews ;  as  he  often 
addresses  a  congregation  as  a  whole,  when  what  he  says  has 
reference  only  to  a  part. 

Were  under  the  cloud,  not  underneath  it,  but  under  its 
guidance.  Ex.  13,  21.  "The  Lord  went  before  them  by  day 
in  a  pillar  of  cloud,  to  lead  them  ;  and  by  night  in  a  pillar  of 
fire  to  give  them  light,  to  go  by  day  and  night."  See  Num 
9,  15.  23.  14,  14.  Deut.  1,  33.  Ps.  78,  14.  <fcc.  No  more  deci 
sive  evidence  could  have  been  given  of  their  election  as  a  peo 
ple,  than  this  supernatural  guidance.  The  symbol  of  the  divine 
presence  and  favour  was  before  their  eyes  day  and  nio-ht  If 
any  people  ever  had  reason  to  think  their  salvation  secure  it 
was  those  whom  God  thus  wonderfully  guided.  They  \dl 
passed  through  the  sea.  Would  God  permit  those  to  perish 
for  whom  he  had  wrought  so  signal  a  deliverance,  and  for 
whose  sake  he  sacrificed  the  hosts  of  Egypt  ?  Yet  their  car 
casses  were  strewed  in  the  wilderness.  It  is  not  enough  there 
fore,  to  be  recipients  of  extraordinary  favours  ;  it  is  not  enough 
to  begin  well.  It  is  only  by  constant  self-denial  and  vigilance 
that  the  promised  reward  can  be  obtained.  This  is  the  lesson 
the  apostle  intends  to  inculcate. 

2.  And  were  all  baptized  *  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea ; 

Baptized  unto  Moses,  i.  e.  in  reference  to  Moses,  so  as  by 

*  The  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  all  read  e'j8airT«&W,  were  baptized,  instead 
of  t/3a7i-TtrravTo,  allowed  themselves  to  be  baptized ;  and  yet  the  majority  of  edi 
tors  prefer  the  latter  reading  as  the  more  difficult. 


172  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  2.3. 

baptism  to  be  made  his  disciples.  See  1, 13.  Rom.  6,  3.  In 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  The  cloud  and  the  sea  did  for  them, 
in  reference  to  Moses,  what  baptism  does  for  us  in  reference 
to  Christ.  Their  passage  through  the  sea,  and  their  guidance 
by  the  cloud,  was  their  baptism.  It  made  them  the  disciples 
of  Moses ;  placed  them  under  obligation  to  recognize  his  di 
vine  commission  and  to  submit  to  his  authority.  This  is  the 
only  point  of  analogy  between  the  cases,  and  it  is  all  the  apos 
tle's  argument  requires.  One  class  of  commentators  says  that 
they  were  immersed  in  the  sea,  and  therefore  it  was  a  bap 
tism  ;  another  says,  the  cloud  rained  upon  them,  and  on  that 
account  they  are  said  to  have  been  baptized.  Both  sugges 
tions  are  equally  forced.  For  the  people  were  baptized  as 
much  in  the  cloud  as  in  the  sea ;  but  they  were  not  immersed 
in  the  cloud  nor  sprinkled  by  the  sea.  There  is  no  allusion  to 
the  mode  of  baptism.  Neither  is  the  point  of  analogy  to  be 
sought  in  the  fact,  that  the  cloud  was  vapour  and  the  sea 
water.  The  cloud  by  night  was  fire.  The  point  of  similarity 
is  to  be  found,  not  in  any  thing  external,  but  in  the  effect  pro 
duced.  The  display  of  God's  power  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea,  brought  the  people  into  the  relation  of  disciples  to  Moses. 
It  inaugurated  the  congregation,  and,  as  it  were,  baptized 
them  to  him,  bound  them  to  serve  and  follow  him. 

3.  And  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat; 

As  they  had  their  baptism,  so  they  had  their  eucharist ; 
and  they  all  had  it.  They  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat. 
They  were  all  alike  favoured,  and  had  therefore  equal  grounds 
of  hope.  Yet  how  few  of  them  reached  the  promised  rest ! 

The  reference  is  here  obviously  to  the  manna,  which  the 
apostle  calls  spiritual  meat.  Why  it  is  so  called  is  very  doubt 
ful.  1.  The  word  spiritual  may  mean,  partaking  of  the  nature 
of  spirit,  a  sense  attributed  to  the  word  in  15,  44,  where,  "spir 
itual  body  "  is  assumed  to  mean  a  refined,  aetherial  body. 
The  manna,  according  to  this  view,  is  called  spiritual  meat,  be 
cause  it  was  a  refined  kind  of  food  ;  much  in  the  way  in  which 
we  use  the  word  celestial  as  an  epithet  of  excellence.  This  in 
terpretation  derives  some  support  from  Ps.  78,  25,  where  the 
manna  is  called  "  angels'  food."  By  Josephus,  A.  III.  1,  6,  it 
is  called,  "  divine  and  wonderful  food."  2.  A  second  inter 
pretation  assumes  that  spiritual  means  having  a  spiritual  im 
port.  "  Spiritual  meat  "  would  then  be  equivalent  to  typical. 
'  They  eat  of  that  bread  which  was  the  type  of  the  true  bread 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  3.  173 

from  heaven.'     Neither  of  these  views,  however,  is  consist 
ent  with  the  scriptural  use  of  the  word.     Spiritual  neither 
means  refined  nor  typical.     In  15,  44,  "  spiritual  body  "  means 
a  body  adapted  to  the  spirit  as  its  organ.     3.  Others  give  the 
word  here  its  very  common  sense,  pertaining  to  the  spirit ;  as, 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  "  carnal  things  "  are  things  pertain- 
in«-  to  the  body,  and  "  spiritual  things"  are  things  pertaining 
to°the  soul.     The  manna,  according  to  this  interpretation,  was 
designed  not  only  for  the  body,  but  for  the  soul.     It  was  spir 
itual  food ;  food  intended  for  the  spirit,  because  attended  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  made  the  means  of  spiritual  nourishment. 
This  is  a  very  commonly  received  interpretation.     Calvin  as 
sumes  it  to  be  the  only  possible  meaning  of  the  passage,  and 
founds  on  it  an  argument  for  his  favourite  doctrine,  that  the 
sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  had  the  same  efficacy  as 
those  of  the  New.     But  this  exalts  the  manna  into  a  sacra 
ment,  which  it  was  not.     It  was  designed  for  ordinary  food; 
as  Nehemiah  (9, 15)  says,  "  Thou  gavest  them  bread  from 
heaven  for  their  hunger,  and  broughtest  forth  for  them  water 
out  of  the  rock  for  their  thirst."     And  our  Lord  represents  it 
in  the  same  light,  when  he  said,  "  Your  fathers  did  eat  manna 
in  the  wilderness  and  are  dead."  John  6,  49.  ^  He  contrasts 
himself,  as  the  true  bread  from  heaven  which  gives  life  to  the 
soul,  with  the  manna  which  had  no  spiritual  efficacy.  ^  4.  One 
of  the  most  common  meanings  of  the  word  spiritual  in  Scrip 
ture  is,  derived  from  the  /Spirit.     Spiritual  gifts  and^spiritual 
blessings  are  gifts  and  blessings  of  which  the  Spirit  is  the 
author.     Every  thing  which  God  does  in  nature  and  in  grace, 
he  does  by  the  Spirit.     He  garnished  the  heavens  by  the 
Spirit ;  and  the  Spirit  renews  the  face  of  the  earth.    When 
therefore  it  is  said,  God  gave  them  bread  from  heaven  to  eat, 
it  means  that  the  Spirit  gave  it ;  for  God  gave  it  through  the 
Spirit.     Thus  God  is  said  to  renew  and  sanctify  men,  because 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  author  of  regeneration  and  sanctifica- 
tion.    The  manna  therefore  was  spiritual  food,  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  the  special  gifts  of  God  are  called  spiritual  gifts. 
That  is,  it  was  given  by  the  Spirit.     It  was  not  natural  food, 
but  food  miraculously  provided.     In  the  same  sense,  in  the 
next  verse,  the  water  is  called  spiritual  drink,  because  miracu 
lously  produced.     In  Gal.  4,  29,  the  natural  birth  of  Isaac  ife 
said  to  have  been  offer  the  Spirit,  because  due  to  the  spe 
cial  intervention  of  God.    As  the  miraculous  deliverance  and 
miraculous  guidance  of  the  Israelites  was  their  baptism,  so 


174  I.  CORINTHIAN'S  10,  3.4. 

their  being  miraculously  fed  was  their  Lord's  Supper.  They 
were  as  signal  marks  of  the  divine  presence  and  favour  as  sa 
craments  are  to  us.  If  their  privileges  did  not  prevent  their 
perishing  in  the  wilderness,  ours  will  not  save  us.  If  the  want 
of  self-denial  and  vigilance  destroyed  them,  it  will  destroy  us. 

4.  And  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink  ;  for 
they  drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them  : 
and  that  Rock  was  Christ. 

The  water  which  they  drank  was  spiritual,  because  derived 
from  the  Spirit,  i.  e.  by  the  special  intervention  of  God.  They 
all  drank  (ITTLOV)  of  it  once  when  first  provided,  and  they  con 
tinued  to  drink  (eWov)  of  it,  for  it  followed  them.  Whatever 
difficulties  may  be  connected  with  the  interpretation  of  this 
verse,  two  things  are  therein  plainly  taught.  First,  that  the 
Israelites  were  constantly  supplied  in  a  miraculous  manner 
with  water ;  and  secondly,  that  the  source  of  that  supply  was 
Christ.  The  principal  difficulties  in  the  passage  are,  the  de 
claration  that  the  rock  followed  the  Israelites ;  and  that  the 
rock  was  Christ.  How  are  these  statements  to  be  under 
stood?  1.  Some  take  the  passage  literally,  and  assume  that 
the  rock  smitten  by  Moses  actually  rolled  after  the  Israelites 
during  all  their  journey.  Such  was  the  tradition  of  the  Jews, 
as  is  abundantly  proved  by  the  quotations  from  their  writings, 
by  Wetstein,  Schoettgen  and  Lightfoot.*  According  to  the 
local  tradition,  as  old  at  least  as  the  Koran,  the  rock  smitten 
by  Moses  was  not  part  of  the  mountain,  but  a  detached  rock, 
pierced  with  holes  whence  the  water  is  said  to  have  flowed. 
This  view  of  the  passage  makes  the  apostle  responsible  for  a 
Jewish  fable,  and  is  inconsistent  with  his  divine  authority. 
Those  who  adopt  this  interpretation  do  not  suppose  that  the 
rock  actually  followed  the  Israelites,  but  that  the  apostle  was 
misled  by  the  tradition  of  his  times.  2.  Others  say  that  by 
the  rock  following  them  is  meant  that  the  water  out  of  the 
rock  followed  them.  There  is  nothing  unnatural  in  this.  To 
say  that  the  vines  of  France  follow  the  people  wherever  they 
go,  would  be  no  violent  figure  to  express  the  fact  that  the 
wine  produced  by  those  vines  followed  them.  No  man  at 
least  would  be  disposed  to  understand  the  expression  literally. 

*  Fuit  (illc  puteus  Num.  21,  16)  sicut  petra,  sicut  alvcus  apum  el  globosus, 
9t  volutavit,  £c.,  ct  ivit  cum  ipsis  iu  itincribus  ipsorum.  Bammidhbar  K.  S.  1. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  4.  1Y5 

In  Ps.  105,  41,  it  is  said,  "He  opened  the  rock,  and  the  waters 
gushed  out ;  they  ran  in  dry  places  like  a  river,"  which  at  least 
proves  that  the  supply  of  water  was  very  copious,  and  flowed 
to  a  considerable  distance.  3.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to 
assume  that  either  the  rock  or  the  water  out  of  the  rock  fol 
lowed  them.  The  rock  that  followed  them  was  Christ.  The 
Logos,  the  manifested  Jehovah,  who  attended  the  Israelites 
in  their  journey,  was  the  Son  of  God  who  assumed  our  nature, 
and  was  the  Christ.  It  was  he  who  supplied  their  wants. 
He  was  to  them  the  fountain  of  living  waters.  He  was  the 
spiritual  rock  of  which  they  drank.  The  word  spiritual  may 
have  the  same  general  force  here  as  in  the  preceding  clauses. 
The  bread  and  water  are  called  spiritual  because  supernatural. 
So  the  rock  was  a  supernatural  rock,  though  in  a  somewhat 
different  sense.  The  manna  was  supernatural  as  to  its  origin ; 
the  rock,  as  to  its  nature.  It  is  not  uncommon  for  a  word  to 
be  taken  in  the  same  connection  in  different,  though ^  nearly 
allied  senses.  Compare  the  use  of  this  word  spiritual  in  2, 15 
and  3,  1 ;  and  <£#eip«  and  <j>9ep£  in  3,  17.  But  in  what  sense 
was  the  rock  Christ  ?  Not  that  Christ  appeared  under  the 
form  of  a  rock ;  nor  that  the  rock  was  a  type  of  Christ,  for 
that  does  not  suit  the  connection.  The  idea  is  not  that  they 
drank  of  the  typical  rock ;  it  was  not  the  type  but  the  anti 
type  that  supplied  their  wants.  The  expression  is  simply 
figurative.  Christ  was  the  rock  in  the  same  sense  that  he  is 
the  vine.  He  was  the  source  of  all  the  support  which  the 
Israelites  enjoyed  during  their  journey  in  the  wilderness. 

This  passage  distinctly  asserts  not  only  the  preexistence 
of  our  Lord,  but  also  that  he  was  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  who  appeared  to  Moses  and  announced  him 
self  as  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Abraham,  who  commissioned  him 
to  go  to  Pharaoh,  who  delivered  the  people  out  of  Egypt,  who 
appeared  on  Horeb,  who  led  the  people  through  the  wilder 
ness,  who  dwelt  in  the  temple,  who  manifested  himself  to 
Isaiah,  who  was  to  appear  personally  in  the  fulness  of  time,  is 
the  person  who  was  born  of  a  virgin,  and  manifested  himself 
in  the  flesh.  He  is  called,  therefore,  in  the  Old  Testament,  an 
angel,  the  angel  of  Jehovah,  Jehovah,  the  Supreme  Lord,  the 
Mighty  God,  the  Son  of  God — one  whom  God  sent — one  with 
him,  therefore,  as  to  substance,  but  a  distinct  person.  Our 
Lord  said,  Abraham  saw  his  day,  for  he  was  before  Abraham, 
John  8,  58  ;  John  says,  12,  41,  Isaiah  beheld  his  glory  in  the 
temple ;  Paul  says,  the  Israelites  tempted  him  in  the  wilder- 


176  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  5.6. 


ness,  1  Cor.  10,  9,  and  that  Moses  suffered  his  reproach,  Heb. 
11,  26  ;  Jude  5.  says,  the  Lord,  or  (as  Lachmann,  after  the  an 
cient  MSS.  and  versions,  reads)  Jesus,  saved  his  people  out  of 
Egypt.  This  truth  early  impressed  itself  on  the  mind  of  the 
Christian  church,  as  appears  from  the  prayer  in  the  ancient 
Liturgies,  O  Adonai  (Supreme  Lord),  et  Dux  Domus  Israel, 
qui  Mosi  in  igne  flammeo  rubi  apparuisti,  et  ei  in  Sina  aquain 
dedisti,  veni  ad  redimendnm  nos  in  brachio  extracto. 


5.  But  with  many  of  them   God  was  not   well 
pleased  :  for  they  were  overthrown  in  the  wilderness. 

But,  i.  e.  notwithstanding  they  had  been  thus  highly  fa 
voured.  With  many  ;  literally,  with  the  greater  number. 
God  was  not  well  pleased,  that  is,  he  was  displeased.  The 
proof  of  his  displeasure  was  that  they  were  overthrown  in  the 
wilderness.  Literally,  they  icere  strewed  as  corpses  in  the  wil 
derness.  Their  path  through  the  desert  could  be  traced  by 
the  bones  of  those  who  perished  through  the  judgments 
of  God. 

6.  Now  these  things  were  our  examples,  to  the  in 
tent  we  should  not  lust  after  evil  things,  as  they  also 
lusted. 

These  things  were  our  examples  /  literally,  our  types.  A. 
type  is  an  impression ;  any  thing  produced  by  blows ;  then  an 
impression  which  has  a  resemblance  to  something  else  ;  then 
a  model  to  which  some  other  person  or  thing  should  be,  or  in 
point  of  fact  would  be,  conformed.  The  Israelites  and  the 
facts  of  their  history  were  our  types,  because  we  shall  be  con 
formed  to  them  if  we  do  not  exercise  caution.  Our  doom  will 
correspond  to  theirs.  They  therefore  stand  as  warnings  to  us. 
The  particular  thing  against  which  their  fate  was  designed  to 
warn  us,  is  lusting  after  evil.  According  to  Num.  11,4,  the 
people  lusted  after,  i.  e.  they  inordinately  longed  for,  the  flesh- 
pots  of  Egypt,  and  said,  Who  shall  give  us  flesh  to  eat  ?  God 
gave  them  their  desire — "  but  while  the  flesh  was  yet  between 
their  teeth,  he  smote  them  with  a  great  plague,  and  the  place 
was  called  the  '  graves  of  lust,'  for  there  they  buried  the  peo 
ple  that  lusted,"  Num.  11,  34.  Comp.  Ps.  78,  27-31,  and  105, 
14. 15.  This  was  a  perpetual  warning  against  the  indulgence 
of  inordinate  desires  for  forbidden  objects.  It  was  specially 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  6.  7.  8.  177 

appropriate  as  a  warning  to  the  Corinthians  not^to  desire  par 
ticipation  in  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  heathen  in  which  they 
had  been  accustomed  to  indulge. 

7.  Neither  be  ye  idolaters,  as  (were)  some  of  them ; 
as  it  is  written,  The  people  sat  down  to  eat  and  drink, 
and  rose  up  to  play. 

The  Corinthians  were  as  much  exposed  to  temptation  on 
this  subject  as  the  Israelites  had  been,  and  were  quite  as  liable 
to  fall  into  idolatrous  practices.  The  Israelites  did  not  con 
sider  themselves  as  idolaters  when  they  made  the  golden  calf; 
they  did  not  believe  that  the  second  commandment  forbade 
the  worship  of  the  true  God  by  images,  and  it  was  Jehovah 
whom  they  designed  to  worship.  The  feast  was  proclaimed 
as  a  feast  to  Jehovah,  Ex.  32,  6.  They  made  the  same  excuse 
for  the  use  of  images  as  the  Romanists  now  do  ;  and  the  same  in 
effect  as  that  which  the  Corinthians  made  for  their  compliance 
with  heathen  usages.  The  latter  did  not  consider  the  partici 
pation  of  the  feasts  in  the  idol's  temple  as  an  act  of  idolatry. 
As  the  Israelites  perished  for  their  sin,  their  excuse  notwith 
standing,  so  those  who  are  in  fact  idolaters,  whether  they  so 
regard  themselves  or  not,  must  expect  a  like  fate.  It  is  not 
enough  to  make  a  thing  right,  that  we  think  it  to  be  so.  Things 
do  not  change  their  nature  according  to  our  thoughts  about 
them.  Murder  is  murder,  though  man  in  his  self-conceit  and 
pride  may  call  it  justifiable  homicide. 

They  sat  down  to  eat  and  to  drink,  i.  e.  of  the  sacrifices 
offered  to  Jehovah  in  the  presence  of  the  golden  calf,  as  a 
symbol  of  creative  power — and  rose  up  to  play,  i.  e.  to  dance, 
as  that  amusement  was,  among  the  ancients,  connected  with 
their  religious  feasts.  Homer,  Od.  8,  251. 

8.  Neither  let  us  commit  fornication,  as  some  of 
them  committed,  and  fell  in  one  day  three  and  twenty 
thousand. 

Idolatry  and  fornication  have  always  been  so  intimately 
connected  that  the  former  seldom  fails  to  lead  to  the  latter. 
This  was  illustrated  in  the  case  of  the  Israelites.  Num.  25, 
1-9,  "  And  the  people  began  to  commit  whoredom  with  the 
daughters  of  Moab  ;  and  they  called  the  people  unto  the  sacri 
fices  of  their  gods.  .  .  .  And  Israel  joined  himself  unto  Baal- 
peor."  This  was  a  god  of  the  Moabites,  who  was  worshipped 


178  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  8.9. 

by  the  prostitution  of  virgins.  Idolatry  and  fornication  were 
in  that  case  inseparable.  In  Corinth  the  principal  temple  was 
dedicated  to  Venus,  and  the  homage  paid  to  her  was  almost 
as  corrupt  as  that  rendered  to  Baal-peor.  How  could  the 
Corinthians  escape  this  evil  if  they  allowed  themselves  to  at 
tend  the  sacrificial  feasts  within  her  temple — under  the  pre 
tence  that  an  idol  is  nothing  ? 

And  were  slain  in  one  day  three  and  twenty  thousand.  In 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the  Septuagint,  by  Philo,  Josephus 
and  the  Rabbis,  the  number  is  given  as  twenty-four  thou 
sand.  Both  statements  are  equally  correct.  Nothing  de 
pended  on  the  precise  number.  Any  number  between  the 
two  amounts  may,  according  to  common  usage,  be  stated 
roundly  as  either  the  one  or  the  other.  The  infallibility  of  the 
sacred  writers  consists  in  their  saying  precisely  what  the  Spirit 
of  God  designed  they  should  say ;  and  the  Spirit  designed  that 
they  should  speak  after  the  manner  of  men — and  call  the  hea 
vens  solid  and  the  earth  flat,  and  use  round  numbers,  without 
intending  to  be  mathematically  exact  in  common  speech.  The 
Bible,  although  perfectly  divine,  because  the  product  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  is  perfectly  human.  The  sacred  writers  spoke 
and  wrote  precisely  as  other  men  in  their  circumstances  would 
have  spoken  and  written,  and  yet  under  such  an  influence  as 
to  make  every  thing  they  said  correspond  infallibly  with  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit.  When  the  hand  of  a  master  touches  the 
organ  we  have  one  sound,  and  when  he  touches  the  harp  we 
have  another.  So  when  the  Spirit  of  God  inspired  Isaiah  we 
had  one  strain,  and  when  he  inspired  Amos,  another.  Moses 
and  Paul  were  accustomed,  like  most  other  men,  to  use  round 
numbers  ;  and  they  used  them  when  under  the  influence  of  in 
spiration  just  as  they  used  other  familiar  forms  of  statement. 
Neither  intended  to  speak  with  numerical  exactness,  which 
the  occasion  did  not  require.  What  a  wonderful  book  is  the 
Bible,  written  at  intervals  during  a  period  of  fifteen  hundred 
years,  when  such  apparitions  of  inaccuracy  as  this  must  be 
seized  upon  to  impeach  its  infallibility ! 

9.  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,*  as  some  of  them 
also  tempted,  and  were  destroyed  of  serpents. 

*  Instead  of  Xpi(rr6v,  the  MSS.  B.  C.,  and  the  Coptic  and  Ethiopia  versions 
read  Kvpiov.  The  MS.  A.  has  &eoV.  The  common  text  is  sustained  by  the 
MSS.  D.  E.  F.  G.  H.  I.  K.,  by  the  Syriac,  Vulgate,  the  old  Latin  and  Sahidic  ver- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  9.  179 

To  tempt  is  to  try,  either  in  the  sense  of  attempting,  or  of 
putting  to  the  test,  with  a  good  or  evil  intent.  God  is  said  to 
tempt  his  people,  when  he  puts  their  faith  and  patience  to  the 
test  for  the  sake  of  exercising  and  strengthening  those  graces, 
Heb.  11,  17.  Satan  and  evil  men  are  said  to  tempt  others, 
when  they  put  their  virtue  to  the  test  with  the  design  of  se 
ducing  them  into  sin,  Gal.  6,  1.  James  1,  3.  Matt.  4,  1,  &G 
Men  are  said  to  tempt  God  when  they  put  his  patience,  fideli 
ty  or  power  to  the  test.  Acts  5,  9.  Matt.  4,  7.  Heb.  3,  9.  It 
was  thus  the  Israelites  tempted  him  in  the  wilderness.  They 
tried  his  forbearance,  they  provoked  him.  The  exhortation  is 
that  we  should  not  thus  tempt  Christ.  This  supposes  that 
Christ  has  authority  over  us,  that  he  is  our  moral  governor  to 
whom  we  are  responsible,  and  who  has  the  power  to  punish 
those  who  incur  his  displeasure.  In  other  words,  the  passage 
assumes  that  we  stand  in  the  relation  to  Christ  which  rational 
creatures  can  sustain  to  God  alone.  Christ,  therefore,  is  God. 
Whether  the  Corinthians  are  warned  against  tempting  Christ 
by  their  impatience  and  discontent,  as  the  Israelites  did  in  the 
particular  case  here  referred  to ;  or  whether  they  are  cautioned 
against  putting  his  fidelity  to  the  test  by  running  unnecessa 
rily  into  danger  (see  Matt.  4,  7),  is  uncertain.  Probably  the 

4v^»»rv>  /-»•»• 


former. 


As  some  of  them  also  tempted.  As  Christ  is  mentioned  in 
the  immediate  context,  it  is  most  natural  to  supply  the  pro 
noun  him.  4  Let  us  not  tempt  Christ,  as  they  tempted  him.' 
This  is  not  only  the  most  natural  explanation,  but  it  is  sus 
tained  by  a  reference  to  v.  4,  and  by  the  analogy  of  Scripture, 
as  the  Bible  elsewhere  teaches  that  the  leader  of  the  Israelites 
was  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  only  on  theological  grounds,  that 
is,  to  get  rid  of  the  authority  of  the  passage  as  a  proof  of  our 
Lord's  divinity,  that  others  interpret  the  passage  thus,  4  Let  us 
not  tempt  Christ,  as  they  tempted  God.'  It  is  only  one  form 
of  the  argument,  however,  which  is  thus  met.  For  according 
to  this  view  the  passage  still  teaches  that  we  sustain  the  rela 
tion  to  Christ  which  the  Israelites  sustained  to  God.  And 
were  destroyed  of  serpents.  Num.  21,  6.  The  people  pro 
voked  God  by  their  complaints  and  by  their  regretting  their 
deliverance  out  of  Egypt.  "  And  the  Lord  sent  fiery  serpents 

sions,  and  by  Chrysostom  and  other  Fathers.  It  is  retained,  therefore,  by  the 
majority  of  editors.  As  the  more  difficult  reading  it  is  the  more  likely  to  be 
the  original  one.  The  temptation  was  strong  to  change  xpivrov  into  KVOIOV. 
but  no  one  would  be  disposed  to  put  the  former  word  for  the  latter. 


180  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  9.  10.  11. 

among  the^ people,  and  they  bit  the  people;  and  much  people 
of  Israel  died."  Similar  judgments  awaited  the  Corinthians 
if  they  exhausted  the  forbearance  of  the  Lord. 

10.  Neither  murmur  ye,  as  some  of  them  also  mur 
mured,  and  were  destroyed  of  the  destroyer. 

To  murmur  is  to  complain  in  a  rebellious  spirit.  The 
reference  is  to  Num.  14,  2,  "And  all  the  children  of  Israel 
murmured  against  Moses  and  against  Aaron :  and  the  whole 
congregation  said  unto  them,  Would  God  we  had  died  in  the 
land  of  Egypt !  or  would  God  we  had  died  in  the  wilderness." 
Vs.  11.  12,  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  How  long  will 
this  people  provoke  me  ?  and  how  long  will  it  be  ere  they  be 
lieve  me  for  all  the  signs  which  I  have  shown  among  them  ? 
I  will  smite  them  with  the  pestilence,  &c."  V.  27,  "How 
long  shall  I  bear  with  this  evil  congregation  which  murmur 
against  me  ?  .  .  .  Their  carcasses  shall  fall  in  the  wilderness." 
Or  the  reference  is  to  Num.  16,  in  which  the  rebellion  of  Ko- 
rah  is  related,  and  the  subsequent  murmuring  of  the  people, 
v.  41,  in  consequence  of  which  fourteen  thousand  and  seven 
hundred  were  destroyed  by  a  plague,  v.  49.  In  both  cases 
the  offence  and  punishment  were  the  same.  Were  destroyed 
of  the  destroyer,  i.  e.  by  an  angel  commissioned  by  God  to  use 
the  pestilence  as  an  instrument  of  destruction.  Hence  some 
times  the  destruction  is  referred  to  the  pestilence,  as  in  Num. 
14,  14;  sometimes  to  the  angel,  as  here;  and  sometimes  both 
the  agent  and  the  instrument  are  combined,  as  in  2  Sam.  24, 
16.  See  Acts  12,  23. 


11.  Now  all  these  things  happened  unto  them  for 
ensamples  :  and  they  are  written  for  our  admonition, 
upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come. 

All  these  happened  (i.  e.  continued  to  happen)  to  them  for 
ensamples.  Literally,  they  were  types,  see  v.  6.  They  were 
intended  as  historical  pictures,  to  represent,  as  Calvin  says, 
the  effects  of  idolatry,  fornication,  murmuring,  &c.  And  they 
are  written,  &c.  They  were  recorded  that  we  might  have  the 
benefit  of  these  dispensations,  so  that  we  might  be  admonished 
to  avoid  the  sins  which  brought  such  judgments  upon  them. 
Upon  it-horn  the  ends  of  the  world  (literally,  of  the  ages)  are 
come.  That  is,  upon  us  who  live  during  the  last  ages.  Dura- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  11.12.  181 

tion  is  sometimes  conceived  of  as  one,  and  is  therefore  ex^ 
pressed  by  the  singular  alw ;  sometimes  as  made  up  of  distinct 
periods,  and  is  then  expressed  by  the  plural  aiwi/es.  Hence  we 
have  the  expressions  a-vvriXeia  TOV  cuwvos,  and  T<OV  atwvwv,  Matt. 
24,  3.  Heb.  9,  26,  both  signifying  the  completion  of  a  given 
portion  of  duration,  considered  either  as  one  or  as  made  up  of 
several  periods.  Sometimes  these  expressions  refer  to  the 
close  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  indicate  the  time  of 
Christ's  first  coming ;  sometimes  they  refer  to  the  close  of  the 
present  dispensation,  and  indicate  the  time  of  his  second  ad 
vent.  Matt.  13,  39,  &c.  See  Eph.  1,  10,  and  Heb.  1,  1,  for 
equivalent  forms  of  expression.  As  in  Heb.  9,  26,  the  comple 
tion  of  the  ages  means  the  end  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  so 
the  ends  of  the  ages  may  have  the  same  meaning  here.  Or 
what,  in  this  case,  may  be  more  natural,  the  meaning  is  that 
we  are  living  during  the  last  of  those  periods  which  are  allot 
ted  to  the  duration  of  the  world,  or  of  the  present  order  of 
things.  One  series  of  ages  terminated  with  the  coming  of 
Christ ;  another,  which  is  the  last,  is  now  passing. 

12.  Wherefore  let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth, 
take  heed  lest  he  fall. 

This  indicates  the  design  of  the  apostle  in  referring  to  the 
events  above  indicated  in  the  history  of  the  Israelites.  There 
is  perpetual  danger  of  falling.  No  degree  of  progress  we  may 
have  already  made,  no  amount  of  privileges  which  we  may 
have  enjoyed,  can  justify  the  want  of  caution.  Let  him  that 
thinketh  he  standeth,  that  is,  let  him  who  thinks  himself  secure. 
This  may  refer  either  to  security  of  salvation,  or  against  the 
power  of  temptation.  The  two  are  very  different,  and  rest 
generally  on  different  grounds.  False  security  of  salvation 
commonly  rests  on  the  ground  of  our  belonging  to  a  privileged 
body  (the  church),  or  to  a  privileged  class  (the  elect).  Both 
are  equally  fallacious.  Neither  the  members  of  the  church 
nor  the  elect  can  be  saved  unless  they  persevere  in  holiness ; 
and  they  cannot  persevere  in  holiness  without  continual  watch 
fulness  and  effort.  False  security  as  to  our  power  to  resist 
temptation  rests  on  an  overweening  self-confidence  in  our  own 
strength.  None  are  so  liable  to  fall  as  they  who,  thinking  them 
selves  strong,  heedlessly  run  into  temptation.  This  probably  is 
the  kind  of  false  security  against  which  the  apostle  warns  the 
Corinthians,  as  he  exhorts  them  immediately  after  to  avoid 
temptation. 


182  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  13. 

13.  There  hath  no  temptation  taken  you  but  such 
as  is  common  to  man :  but  God  (is)  faithful,  who  will 
not  suffer  you  to  be  tempted  above  that  ye  are  able ; 
but  will  with  the  temptation  also  make  a  way  to  escape, 
that  ye  may  be  able  to  bear  (it). 

N~o  temptation,  i.  e.  no  trial,  whether  in  the  form  of  seduc 
tions  or  of  afflictions,  has  taken  you  but  such  as  is  common  to 
man;  literally  human,  accommodated  to  human  strength, 
such  as  men  are  able  to  bear.  'You  have  been  subjected  to 
no  superhuman  or  extraordinary  temptations.  Your  trials 
hitherto  have  been  moderate ;  and  God  will  not  suffer  you  to 
be  unduly  tried.'  This  is  the  ordinary  interpretation  of  this 
passage,  and  one  which  gives  a  simple  and  natural  sense.  It 
may,  however,  mean,  '  Take  heed  lest  ye  fall.  The  tempta 
tions  which  you  have  hitherto  experienced  are  moderate  com 
pared  to  those  to  which  you  are  hereafter  to  be  subjected.' 
In  this  view,  it  is  not  so  much  an  encouragement,  as  a  warning 
that  all  danger  was  not  over.  The  apostle  is  supposed  to  re 
fer  to  those  peculiar  trials  which  were  to  attend  "  the  last 
times."  As  these  times  were  at  hand,  the  Corinthians  were  in 
circumstances  which  demanded  peculiar  care.  They  should 
not  run  into  temptation,  for  the  days  were  approaching  when, 
if  it  were  possible,  even  the  elect  would  be  deceived.  As, 
however,  there  is  no  contrast  between  the  present  and  the  fu 
ture  intimated  in  the  passage,  the  common  interpretation  is 
the  more  natural  one. 

Hut  God  is  faithful.  He  has  promised  to  preserve  his 
people,  and  therefore  his  fidelity  is  concerned  in  not  allowing 
them  to  be  unduly  tempted.  Here,  as  in  1,  9,  and  every  where 
else  in  Scripture,  the  security  of  believers  is  referred  neither 
to  the  strength  of  the  principle  of  grace  infused  into  them  by 
regeneration,  nor  to  their  own  firmness,  but  to  the  fidelity  of 
God.  He  has  promised  that  those  given  to  the  Son  as  his  in 
heritance,  should  never  perish.  They  are  kept,  therefore,  by 
the  power  of  God,  through  faith,  unto  salvation,  1  Peter  1,  4. 
This  promise  of  security,  however,  is  a  promise  of  security 
from  sin,  and  therefore  those  who  fall  into  wilful  and  habitual 
sin  are  not  the  subjects  of  the  promise.  Should  they  fall,  it  is 
after  a  severe  struggle,  and  they  are  soon  renewed  again  unto 
repentance.  The  absolute  security  of  believers,  and  the  ne 
cessity  of  constant  watchfulness,  are  perfectly  consistent. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  13.  183 

Those  whom  God  has  promised  to  save,  he  has  promised  to 
render  watchful.  Who  will  not  suffer  you  to  be  tempted  above 
that  you  are  able,  i.  e.  able  to  bear.  This  is  the  proof  of  his  fidel 
ity.  But  will  with  the  temptation  make  a  ivay  of  escape.  This 
means  either,  that  when  the  temptation  comes,  God  will  make 
a  way  of  escape ;  or,  that  when  God  brings  the  temptation  he 
will  also  bring  the  way  of  escape.  In  the  latter  sense  God  is 
regarded  as  the  author  of  the  temptation,  in  the  former  he  is 
not.  The  latter  is  to  be  preferred  on  account  of  the  <™V,  with. 
*  He  will  make  with  the  temptation  a  way  of  escape,'  i.  e.  he 
makes  the  one,  he  will  make  the  other.  The  apostle  James  in 
deed  says,  "  God  cannot  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempt- 
eth  he  any  man,"  James  1,3.  To  tempt  there,  however,  means 
to  solicit,  or  attempt  to  seduce  into  sin.  In  that  sense  God 
tempts  no  man.  But  he  does  often  put  their  virtue  to  the 
test,  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham.  And  in  that  sense  he  tempts 
or  tries  them.  What  the  apostle  here  says  is,  that  when  God 
thus  tries  his  people  it  will  not  be  beyond  their  strength,  and 
that  he  will  always  make  a  way  of  escape  that  they  may  be 
able  to  bear  it.  This  expresses  the  design  of  God  in  making  a 
way  of  escape.  (The  genitive  TOV  Swao-#at,  &c.,  is  the  genitive 
of  design). 

Proof  that  attendance  on    sacrificial  feasts  in  a  heathen 
temple  is  idolatry.     Ys.  14-22. 

This  whole  discussion  arose  out  of  the  question  whether  it 
was  lawful  to  eat  the  sacrifices  offered  to  idols.  Paul,  while 
admitting  that  there  was  nothing  wrong  in  eating  of  such 
meat,  exhorts  the  Corinthians  to  abstain  for  the  sake  of  their 
weaker  brethren.  There  was  another  reason  for  this  absti 
nence  ;  they  might  be  led  into  idolatry.  By  going  to  the 
verge  of  the  allowable,  they  might  be  drawn  'into  the  sinful. 
There  was  great  danger  that  the  Corinthians,  convinced  that 
an  idol  was  nothing,  might  be  induced  to  join  the  sacrificial 
feasts  within  the  precincts  of  the  temples.  The  danger  was 
the  greater,  because  such  feasts,  if  held  in  a  private  house,  lost 
their  religious  character,  and  might  be  attended  without 
scruple.  To  convince  his  readers,  that  if  the  feast  was  held  in 
a  temple,  attendance  upon  it  was  an  act  of  idolatry,  is  the  ob 
ject  of  this  section.  The  apostle's  argument  is  from  analogy. 
Attendance  on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an  act  of  communion  With 
Christ,  the  object  of  Christian  worship,  and  with  all  those  who 


184  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  14. 

unite  with  us  in  the  service.  From  its  very  nature,  it  brings 
all  who  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  fellowship  with 
Christ  arid  with  one  another,  vs.  14-17.  The  same  is  true  of 
Jewish  sacrifices.  Whoever  eats  of  those  sacrifices,  is  thereby 
brought  into  communion  with  the  object  of  Jewish  worship. 
The  act  is  in  its  nature  an  act  of  worship,  v.  18.  The  conclu 
sion  is  too  plain  to  need  being  stated — those  who  join  in  the 
sacrificial  feasts  of  the  heathen,  join  in  the  worship  of  idols. 
Such  is  the  import  of  the  act,  and  no  denial  on  the  part  of 
those  who  perform  it  can  alter  its  nature.  It  is  not  to  be  in 
ferred  from  this  mode  of  reasoning,  that  the  objects  of  heathen 
worship  are  what  the  heathen  suppose  them  to  be.  Because 
Paul  argued  that,  as  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an  act 
of  Christian  worship,  partaking  of  an  idol-feast  must  be  an  act 
of  heathen  worship,  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  he  regarded 
Jupiter  or  Juno  as  much  real  beings  as  Christ  is.  Far  from 
it.  What  the  heathen  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  demons ;  and 
therefore,  to  partake  of  their  sacrifices  under  circumstances 
which  gave  religious  significance  to  the  act,  brought  them 
into  communion  with  demons,  vs.  19.  20.  The  two  things  are 
incompatible.  A  man  cannot  be  a  worshipper  of  Christ  and  a 
worshipper  of  demons,  or  in  communion  with  the  one  while  in 
communion  with  the  other.  Going  to  the  Lord's  table  is  a 
renunciation  of  demons  ;  and  going  to  the  table  of  demons  is 
a  renunciation  of  Christ,  v.  21.  By  this  conduct  the  jealousy 
of  the  Lord  would  be  excited  against  them,  as  of  old  it  was 
excited  against  the  Jews  who  turned  aside  after  false  gods, 
v.  22. 

14.  Wherefore,  my  dearly  beloved,  flee  from 
idolatry. 

Wherefore,  i.  e.  because  such  severe  judgments  came  upon 
the  idolatrous  Israelites ;  because  you,  as  well  as  they,  are  in 
danger  of  being  involved  in  that  sin ;  and  because  your  dis 
tinguished  privileges  can  protect  you  neither  from  the  sin  nor 
from  its  punishment  any  more  than  their  privileges  protected 
them.  My  dearly  beloved.  Paul  addresses  them  in  terms  of 
affection,  although  his  epistle  is  so  full  of  serious  admonition 
and  warning.  Flee  from  idolatry,  i.  e.  avoid  it  by  fleeing 
from  it.  This  is  the  only  safe  method  of  avoiding  sin.  Its 
presence  is  malarious.  The  only  safety  is  keeping  at  a  dis 
tance.  This  includes  two  things ;  first,  avoiding  what  is  ques- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  14.15.16.  185 

tionable ;  that  is,  every  thing  which  lies  upon  the  border  of 
what  is  allowable,  or  which  approaches  the  confines  of  sin ; 
and  secondly,  avoiding  the  occasion  and  temptations  to  sin ; 
keeping  at  a  distance  from  every  thing  which  excites  evil  pas 
sion,  or  which  tends  to  ensnare  the  soul. 

15.  I  speak  as  to  wise  men ;  judge  ye  what  I  say. 

Unto  wise  men  ;  i.  e.  as  to  men  of  sense  ;  men  capable  of 
seeing  the  force  of  an  argument.  Paul's  appeal  is  not  to 
authority,  whether  his  own  or  that  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
whole  question  was,  whether  a  given  service  came  within  the 
scriptural  definition  of  idolatry.  He  was  willing,  as  it  were, 
to  leave  the  decision  to  themselves  ;  and  therefore  said,  judge 
ye  what  I  say,  i.  e.  sit  in  judgment  on  the  argument  which  I 
present.  Should  they  differ  from  the  apostle,  that  would  not 
alter  the  case.  The  service  was  idolatrous,  whatever  they 
thought  of  it.  But  he  takes  this  way  of  convincing  them. 

16.  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?     The  bread 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ? 

It  is  here  assumed  that  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
brings  us  into  communion  with  Christ.  If  this  be  so,  partaking 
of  the  table  of  demons  must  bring  us  into  communion  with 
demons.  This  is  the  apostle's  argument.  It  is  founded  on 
the  assumption,  that  a  participation  of  the  cup  is  a  participa 
tion  of  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  that  a  participation  of  the 
bread  is  a  participation  of  the  body  of  Christ.  So  far  Roman 
ists,  Lutherans,  and  Reformed  agree  in  their  interpretation  of 
this  important  passage.  They  all  agree  that  a  participation 
of  the  cup  is  a  participation  of  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  that 
a  participation  of  the  bread,  is  a  participation  of  the  body  of 
Christ.  But  when  it  is  asked,  what  is  the  nature  of  this  par 
ticipation,  the  answers  given  are  radically  different.  The  Re 
formed  answer,  negatively,  that  it  is  "  not  after  a  corporal  or 
carnal  manner."  That  is,  it  is  not  by  the  mouth,  or  as  ordi 
nary  food  is  received.  Affirmatively,  they  answer  that  it  is 
by  faith,  and  therefore  by  the  soul.  This,  of  course,  deter 
mines  the  nature  of  the  thing  partaken  of,  or  the  sense  in 
which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  received.  If  the  re- 


186  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  16. 

ception  is  not  by  the  mouth,  but  by  faith,  then  the  thing  re 
ceived  is  not  the  material  body  and  blood,  but  the  body  and 
blood  as  a  sacrifice,  i.  e.  their  sacrificial  virtue.  Hence  all  Re 
formed  churches  teach  (and  even  the  rubrics  of  the  Church 
of  England),  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  received 
elsewhere  than  at  the  Lord's  table,  and  without  the  reception 
of  the  bread  and  wine,  which  in  the  Sacrament  are  their  sym 
bols  and  the  organs  of  communication,  as  elsewhere  the  word 
is  that  organ.  Another  point  no  less  clear  as  to  the  Reformed 
doctrine  is,  that  since  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  re 
ceived  by  faith,  they  are  not  received  by  unbelievers. 

Romanists  answer  the  above  question  by  saying,  that  the 
mouth  is  the  organ  of  reception ;  that  the  thing  received 
is  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  into  the  substance  of 
which  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  by  the  act  of  conse 
cration  ;  and  consequently,  that  believers  and  unbelievers  are 
alike  partakers.  Lutherans  teach,  that  although  the  bread 
and  wine  remain  unchanged,  yet,  as  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  locally  present  in  the  sacrament,  in,  with,  and  under 
the  bread  and  wine,  the  organ  of  reception  is  the  mouth  ;  the 
thing  received  is  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  that 
they  are  received  alike  or  equally  by  believers  and  unbe 
lievers  ;  by  the  latter,  however,  to  their  detriment  and  con 
demnation  ;  by  the  former,  to  their  spiritual  nourishment  and 
growth  in  grace.  Lutherans  and  Romanists  further  agree  in 
teaching,  that  there  is  a  reception  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  is  elsewhere  impossible. 

These  are  the  three  great  forms  of  doctrine  which  have 
prevailed  in  the  Church  on  this  subject ;  and  this  passage  is 
interpreted  by  each  party  in  accordance  with  their  peculiar 
views.  The  passage  decides  no  point  of  diiference.  If  the 
Romish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  can  be  elsewhere  proved, 
then,  of  course,  this  passage  must  be  understood  in  accordance 
with  it.  And  if  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  consubstantiation 
can  be  established  by  other  declarations  of  the  Word  of  God, 
then  this  passage  must  be  explained  in  accordance  with  that 
doctrine.  But,  if  it  can  be  clearly  demonstrated  from  Scrip 
ture  and  from  those  laws  of  belief  which  God  has  impressed 
upon  our  nature,  that  those  doctrines  are  false,  then  the  pas 
sage  must  be  understood  as  teaching  a  spiritual,  and  not  a  cor 
poral  participation  of  Christ's  body  and  blood.  All  that 
the  passage  asserts  is  the  fact  of  a  participation,  the  nature 
of  that  participation  must  be  determined  from  other  sources. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  16.  187 

The  cup  of  blessing.  The  word  (euAoye'w),  to  bless,  means, 
1.  To  speak  well  of.  2.  To  praise  and  thank ;  as  when  we 
bless  God.  3.  To  confer  blessings,  as  when  God  blesses  us. 
In  virtue  of  the  second  of  these  meanings,  the  word  is  used 
interchangeably  with  (evxapia-red)),  to  give  thanks.  That  is, 
the  same  act  is  sometimes  expressed  by  the  one  word  and 
sometimes  by  the  other.  In  Matt.  26,  26  and  Mark  14,  22, 
what  is  expressed  by  saying,  having  blessed,  in  Luke  22,  17. 
19.  and  1  Cor.  11,  25,  is  expressed  by  saying,  having  given 
thanks.  And  in  the  account  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  Matthew 
and  Mark,  the  one  word  is  used  in  reference  to  the  bread,  and 
the  other  in  reference  to  the  cup.  They  therefore  mean  the 
same  thing,  or  rather  express  the  same  act,  for  that  act  was 
both  a  benediction  and  thanksgiving ;  that  is,  it  was  an  ad 
dress  to  God,  acknowledging  his  mercy  and  imploring  his 
blessing,  and  therefore  may  be  expressed  either  by  the  word 
benediction  or  thanksgiving.  It  is  not  necessary  to  infer  that 
in  these  cases  (evAoy^o-as)  having  blessed  is  used  in  the  re 
stricted  sense  of  (eux^10"1"^015)  having  given  thanks.  This 
cannot  be  the  fact,  because  the  object  of  (euAoyTJo-as),  at  least 
in  some  of  these  passages,  is  not  God,  but  the  bread  or  the 
cup.  The  meaning  is,  'having  blessed  the  bread.'  The 
phrase,  therefore,  the  cup  of  blessing,  so  far  as  the  significa 
tion  of  the  words  is  concerned,  may  be  rendered  either — the 
cup  of  thanksgiving  (the  eucharistical  cup),  or  the  cup  of 
benediction,  the  consecrated  cup.  The  latter  is  no  doubt  the 
true  meaning,  because  the  explanation  immediately  follows, 
which  ice  bless.  The  cup,  and  not  God,  is  blessed.  To  take 
the  phrase  actively,  the  cup  which  confers  blessing  is  not  only 
inconsistent  with  usage,  but  incompatible  with  the  explanation 
which  immediately  follows.  The  cup  of  blessing  is  the  cup 
which  we  bless.  In  the  Paschal  service  the  cup  was  called 
"  the  cup  of  blessing,"  because  a  benediction  was  pronounced 
over  it.  The  idea  of  consecration  is  necessarily  included. 
Wine,  as  wine,  is  not  the  sacramental  symbol  of  Christ's  blood, 
but  only  when  solemnly  consecrated  for  that  purpose.  Even 
our  ordinary  food  is  said  to  "  be  sanctified  by  the  word  of  God 
and  prayer,"  1  Tim.  4,  5,  because  it  is  set  apart  by  a  religious 
service  to  the  end  for  which  it  was  appointed.  So  the  cup  of 
blessing  is  the  cup  which,  by  the  benediction  pronounced  over 
it,  is  "  set  apart  from  a  common  to  a  sacred  use." 

Which  we  bless.    This  is  the  explanation  of  the  preceding 
clause.     The  cup  of  blessing  is  the  cup  which  we  bless ;  which 


188  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  16. 

can  only  mean  the  cup  on  which  we  implore  a  blessing ;  that 
is,  which  we  pray  may  be  blessed  to  the  end  for  which  it  was 
appointed,  viz.  to  be  to  us  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ.  That  is,  the  means  of  communicating  to  us  the  bene 
fits  of  Christ's  death.  Just  as  we  bless  our  food  when  we 
pray  that  God  would  make  it  the  means  of  nourishing  our 
bodies.  The  other  interpretations  of  this  clause  are  unnatu 
ral,  because  they  require  something  to  be  supplied  which  is 
not  in  the  text.  Thus  some  say  the  meaning  is,  "taking 
which,"  or  "  holding  which  in  our  hands,"  or  "  over  which," 
we  give  thanks.  All  this  is  unnecessary,  as  the  words  give  a 
perfectly  good  sense  as  they  stand  (o  cuXoyov/xev),  which  (cup)  we 
bless,  This  passage,  therefore,  seems  to  determine  the  mean 
ing  of  such  passages  as  Matt.  26,  26  and  Mark  14,  22,  "  Hav 
ing  blessed  (viz.  the  bread)  he  brake  it."  The  bread  or  cup 
was  the  thing  blessed.  Comp.  Luke  9,  16,  where  it  is  said  our 
Lord,  "  having  taken  the  five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes,  and 
having  looked  up  to  heaven,  he  blessed  them."  This  also 
shows  that  "  having  given  thanks  "  in  such  connections  means 
"  having  with  thanksgiving  implored  the  blessing  of  God." 
The  cup  therefore  is  blessed  by  the  prayer,  in  which  we  ask 
that  God  would  make  it  answer  the  end  of  its  appointment. 

la  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  That  is, 
is  it  not  the  means  of  participating  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ? 
He  who  partakes  of  the  cup,  partakes  of  Christ's  blood.  This, 
of  course,  is  true  only  of  believers.  Paul  is  Avriting  to  believ 
ers,  and  assumes  the  presence  of  faith  in  the  receiver.  ^  Thus 
baptism  is  said  to  wash  away  sin,  and  the  word  of  God  is  said 
to  sanctify,  not  from  any  virtue  in  them ;  not  as  an  external 
rite  or  as  words  addressed  to  the  outward  ear ;  not  to  all  in 
discriminately  who  are  baptized  or  who  hear  the  word ;  but 
as  means  of  divine  appointment,  wThen  received  by  faith  and 
attended  by  the  working  of  his  Spirit.  The  believing  _  recep 
tion  of  the  cup  is  as  certainly  connected  with  a  participation 
of  Christ's  blood,  as  the  believing  reception  of  the  word  is 
connected  with  an  experience  of  its  life-giving  power.  The 
whole  argument  of  the  apostle  is  founded  on  this  idea.  He 
wishes  to^prove  that  partaking  of  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the 
heathen  brought  men  into  real  communion  with  demons,  be 
cause  participation  of  the  Lord's  supper  makes  us  really  par 
takers  of  Christ.  The  word  Kotvwna,  communion,  means  par 
ticipation,  from  the  verb  KOIVCOVCW,  to  partake  of  ;  in  Heb.  2, 14, 
it  is  said,  Christ  took  part  of  flesh  and  blood.  Rom.  15, 17, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  16.  189 

the  Gentiles  took  part  in  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  Jews. 
Hence  we  have  such  expressions  as  the  following :  participa 
tion  of  his  Son,  1  Cor.  1,  9  ;  participation  of  the  Spirit,  2  Cor. 
13,  13.  Phil.  2,  1  ;  participation  of  the  ministry,  2  Cor.  8,  4 ; 
of  the  gospel,  Phil.  1,  5  ;  of  sufferings,  Phil.  3,  5.  Of  course 
the  nature  of  this  participation  depends  on  the  nature  of  its 
object.  Participation  of  Christ  is  sharing  in  his  Spirit, ^charac 
ter,  sufferings  and  glory  ;  participation  of  the  gospel  is  parti 
cipation  of  its  benefits ;  and  thus  participation  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  partaking  of  its  benefits.  This  passage  affords  not 
the  slightest  ground  for  the  Romish  or  Lutheran  doctrine  of  a 
participation  of  the  substance  of  Christ's  body  and  blood. 
When  in  1,  9  it  is  said,  "  We  are  called  into  the  fellowship  or 
participation  of  his  Son,"  it  is  not  of  the  substance  of  the  God 
head  that  we  partake.  And  when  the  Apostle  John  says, 
"  We  have  fellowship  one  with  another,"  i.  e.  we  are  (KOLVWOL) 
partners  one  of  another,  1  John  1,  7,  he  does  not  mean  that 
we  partake  of  each  other's  corporeal  substance.  To  share  in 
a  sacrifice  offered  in  our  behalf  is  to  share  in  its  efficacy ;  and 
as  Christ's  blood  means  his  sacrificial  blood,  to  partake  of  his 
blood  no  more  means  to  partake  of  his  literal  blood,  than 
when  it  is  said  his  blood  cleanses  from  all  sin,  it  is  meant  that 
his  literal  corporeal  blood  has  this  cleansing  efficacy.  When 
we  are  said  to  receive  the  sprinkling  of  his  blood,  1  Pet.  1, 1, 
it  does  not  mean  his  literal  blood. 

The  bread  which  ice  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
body  of  Christ  f  That  is,  by  partaking  of  the  bread  we  par 
take  of  the  body  of  Christ.  This  is  but  a  repetition  of  the 
thought  contained  in  the  preceding  clause.  The  cup  is  the 
means  of  participation  of  his  blood  ;  the  bread  the  means  of 
participation  of  his  body.  The  body  of  Christ  cannot  here 
mean  the  church,  because  his  blood  is  mentioned  in  the  same 
connection,  and  because  in  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper 
the  bread  is  the  symbol  of  Christ's  literal,  and  not  of  his  mys 
tical  body.  To  partake  of  his  body,  is  to  partake  of  the  bene 
fits  of  his  body  as  broken  for  us.  WJiich  we  break.  This  is 
in  evident  allusion  to  the  original  institution  of  the  sacrament. 
Our  Lord  "took  bread,  and  having  given  thanks,  he  brake  it 
and  said,  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body  which  is  broken  for  you." 
1  Cor.  11,  24.  The  whole  service,  therefore,  is  often  called  th 
"breaking  of  bread."  Acts  2,  42.  20,  7.  The  custom,  there 
fore,  of  using  a  wafer  placed  unbroken  in  the  mouth  of  the 


190  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  16.17. 

communicant,  leaves  out  an  important  significant  element  in 
this  sacrament. 

17.  For  we  (being)  many  are  one  bread,  (and)  one 
body  :  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread. 

Literally  rendered  this  verse  reads  :  Since  it  is  one  bread^ 
we  the  many  are  one  body  ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  one 
bread.  We  are  not  said  to  be  one  bread ;  but  we  are  one 
body  because  we  partake  of  one  bread.  The  design  of  the 
apostle  is  to  show  that  every  one  who  comes  to  the  Lord's 
supper  enters  into  communion  with  all  other  communicants. 
They  form  one  body  in  virtue  of  their  joint  participation  of 
Christ.  This  being  the  case,  those  who  attend  the  sacrificial 
feasts  of  the  heathen  form  one  religious  body.  They  are  in 
religious  communion  with  each  other,  because  in  communion 
with  the  demons  on  whom  their  worship  terminates.  Many 
distinguished  commentators,  however,  prefer  the  following  in 
terpretation.  "For  we,  though  many,  are  one  bread  (and) 
one  body."  The  participation  of  the  same  loaf  makes  us  one 
bread,  and  the  joint  participation  of  Christ's  body  makes  us 
one  body.  This  is,  to  say  the  least,  an  unusual  and  harsh 
figure.  Believers  are  never  said  to  be  one  bread ;  and  to 
make  the  ground  of  comparison  the  fact  that  the  loaf  is  the 
joint  product  of  many  grains  of  wheat  is  very  remote.  And 
to  say  that  we  are  literally  one  bread,  because  by  assimilation 
the  bread  passes  into  the  composition  of  the  bodies  of  all  the 
communicants,  is  to  make  the  apostle  teach  modern  physiology. 

In  the  word  KOIVCOVIO,,  communion,  as  used  in  the  preceding 
verse,  lies  the  idea  of  joint  participation.  'The  bread  which 
we  break  is  a  joint  participation  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  be 
cause  (on)  it  is  one  bread,  so  are  we  one  body.'  The  thing 
to  be  proved  is  the  union  of  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread. 
Instead  of  connecting  this  verse  with  the  16th,  as  containing 
a  confirmation  of  what  is  therein  stated,  many  commentators 
take  it  as  an  independent  sentence  introducing  a  passing  re 
mark.  '  The  Lord's  supper  brings  us  into  communion  with 
Christ.  Because  this  is  the  case,  we  are  one  body  and  should 
act  accordingly.''  But  this  not  only  breaks  the  connection, 
but  introduces  what  is  not  in  the  text.  The  idea  is,  4  Par 
taking  of  the  sacrament  is  a  communion,  because  we  the  many 
all  partake  of  one  br  ;ad.' 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  18.  191 

18.  Behold   Israel  after  the  flesh:   are  not  they 
which  eat  of  the  sacrifices  partakers  of  the  altar  ? 

Israel  after  the  flesh,  i.  e.  the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  as  distin 
guished  from  Israel  after  the  Spirit,  or  the  spiritual  Israel  or 
true  people  of  God.  As  Israel  was  a  favourite  term  of  honour, 
Paul  rarely  uses  it  for  the  Jews  as  a  people  without  some  such 
qualification.  Comp.  Horn.  2,  28.  9?  8.  Gal.  4,  29.  6,  16. 

Are  not  they  which  eat  of  the  sacrifices.  With  the  Jews, 
as  with  other  nations,  only  a  portion  of  most  sacrifices  was 
consumed  upon  the  altar ;  the  residue  was  divided  between 
the  priest  and  the  offerer.  Lev.  7,15.  8,31.  Deut.  12,18. 
To  eat  of  the  sacrifices  in  the  way  prescribed  in  the  Law  of 
Moses,  was  to  take  part  in  the  whole  sacrificial  service.  "  Thou 
must  eat  them  before  the  Lord  thy  God,  in  the  place  which 
the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose."  Deut.  12, 18.  Therefore  the 
apostle  says  that  those  who  eat  of  the  sacrifices  are  partakers 
of  the  altar  ;  that  is,  they  are  in  communion  with  it.  They 
become  worshippers  of  the  God  to  whom  the  altar  is  dedi 
cated.  This  is  the  import  and  the  effect  of  joining  in  these 
sacrificial  feasts.  The  question  is  not  as  to  the  intention  of 
the  actors,  but  as  to  the  import  of  the  act,  and  as  to  the  inter 
pretation  universally  put  upon  it.  To  partake  of  a  Jewish 
sacrifice  as  a  sacrifice  and  in  a  holy  place,  was  an  act  of 
Jewish  worship.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  to  partake  of  a 
heathen  sacrifice  as  a  sacrifice,  and  in  a  holy  place,  was  of  ne 
cessity  an  act  of  heathen  worship.  As  all  who  attended  the 
Jewish  sacrifices,  to  which  none  but  Jews  were  admitted,  pro 
fessed  to  be  Jews  and  to  be  the  joint-worshippers  of  Jehovah, 
and  as  they  could  not  be  in  communion  with  the  altar  without 
being  in  communion  with  each  other,  therefore  all  who  at 
tended  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  heathen  brought  themselves 
into  religious  communion  with  idolaters.  It  need  hardly  be 
remarked  that  this  passage  gives  no  ground  for  the  opinion 
that  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  sacrifice.  This  is  not  the  point  of 
comparison.  The  apostle's  argument  does  not  imply  that,  be 
cause  the  Jewish  and  heathen  feasts  were  sacrificial  feasts, 
therefore  the  Christian  festival  had  the  same  character.  The 
whole  stress  lies  on  the  word  Kotvowa.  '  Because  participation 
of  Christian  ordinances  involves  communion  with  Christ,  par 
ticipation  of  heathen  ordinances  involves  communion  with 
devils.' 


192  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  19.20. 

19.  What  say  I  then  ?  that  the  idol  is  any  thing, 
or  that  which  is  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols  is  any 
thing? 

This  is  evidently  intended  to  guard  against  a  false  inference 
from  this  mode  of  reasoning.  It  was  not  to  be  inferred  from 
what  he  had  said,  that  he  regarded  the  professed  objects  of 
heathen  worship  as  having  the  same  objective  existence  as  the 
God  whom  Jews  and  Christians  worshipped  ;  or  that  he  con 
sidered  the  heathen  sacrifices  as  having  any  inherent  power. 
The  idol  was  nothing,  and  that  which  was  oifered  to  the  idol 
was  nothing.  This  however  does  not  alter  the  case.  For  al 
though  there  are  no  such  beings  as  those  whom  the  heathen 
conceive  their  gods  to  be,  and  although  their  sacrifices  are  not 
what  they  consider  them,  still  their  worship  is  real  idolatry, 
and  has  a  destructive  influence  on  the  soul.  How  this  is,  is 
explained  in  the  following  verse. 

20.  But  (I  say),  that  the  things  which  the  Gentiles 
sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God :  and 
I  would  not  that  ye  should  have  fellowship  with  devils. 

That  is,  *  I  do  not  say  the  gods  of  the  heathen  have  a  real 
existence,  that  there  are  any  such  persons  as  Jupiter  or  Mi 
nerva  ;  but  I  do  say  that  the  heathen  worship  is  the  worship 
of  demons.'  This  verse  presents  two  questions  for  considera 
tion.  First,  in  what  sense  does  Paul  here  use  the  word  SCU/AO- 
vta,  translated  devils  ;  and  secondly,  in  what  sense  can  it  be 
truly  said  that  the  heathen  worship  devils. 

The  words  Sai/xwi/  and  SOU/AOI/IOV  were  used  by  the  Greeks 
for  any  deity  or  god,  or  spirit,  and  generally  for  any  object 
of  reverence  or  dread.  The  only  case  in  the  New  Testament 
where  they  have  this  sense  is  Acts  17,  18,  ("  He  seems  to  be  a 
setter  forth  of  strange  gods.")  Elsewhere  they  always  mean 
fallen  angels.  Our  translators  have  not  adhered  to  the  dis 
tinction  which  in  the  New  Testament  is  constantly  made  in 
the  use  of  the  words  8w/3oAos  and  Scujaonov.  They  translate 
both  terms  by  the  word  devil,  and  hence,  when  the  latter  oc 
curs  in  the  plural  form,  they  render  it  devils.  The  former, 
however,  is  never  applied  in  Scripture  (except  in  its  appellative 
sense  of  accuser)  to  any  other  being  than  Satan.  He  is  the 
Devil,  and  the  Scriptures  never  speak  of  more  than  one.  By 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  20.  193 

devils,  therefore,  in  this  case  are  to  be  understood  demons,  or 
the  fallen  angels  or  evil  spirits.  That  this  is  the  sense  in  which 
the  Greek  word  is  to  be  here  taken  is  plain,  1.  Because  it  is 
its  only  scriptural  sense.  The  passage  in  Acts  17,  18,  being 
the  language  of  Athenians,  proves  nothing  as  to  the  usage  of 
Jews  speaking  Greek.  2.  In  the  Septuagint  we  have  precisely 
the  words  used  by  the  apostle,  and  in  the  same  sense.  Deut. 
32, 17.  ^  See  also  Ps.  95,  5,  where  the  Septuagint  version  is,  on 
Traj/res  01  $eo!  rwv  e^i/tov  Sat/xona,  all  the  gods  of  the  heathen  are 
devils.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  apostle  meant  to 
use  the  word  in  its  established  scriptural  sense.  Comp.  also 
Rev.  9,  20.  3.  The  classical  sense  of  the  word  does  not  suit 
the  context.  Paul  had  just  said  that  the  heathen  gods  were 
nothing ;  to  admit  now  that  there  were  deities  in  the  Grecian 
sense  of  the  word  8ai//,onoi/,  would  be  to  contradict  himself. 
We  must  understand  the  apostle,  therefore,  as  saying  on  the 
one  hand,  that  the  gods  of  the  heathen  were  imaginary  beings ; 
and  on  the  other,  that  their  sacrifices  were  really  offered  to 
evil  spirits.  In  what  sense,  however,  is  this  true  ?  The  hea 
then  certainly  did  not  intend  to  worship  evil  spirits.  Never 
theless  they  did  it.  Men  of  the  world  do  not  intend  to  serve 
Satan,  when  they  break  the  laws  of  God  in  the  pursuit  of 
their  objects  of  desire.  Still  in  so  doing  they  are  really  obey 
ing  the  will  of  ^the  great  adversary,  yielding  to  his  impulses, 
and  fulfilling  his  designs.  He  is  therefore  said  to  be  the  god 
of  this  world.  To  him  all  sin  is  an  offering  and  an  homage. 
We  are  shut  up  to  the  necessity  of  worshipping  God  or  Satan  ; 
for  all  refusing  or  neglecting  to  worship  the  true  God,  or  giv 
ing  to  any  other  the  worship  which  is  due  to  him  alone,  is  the 
worshipping  of  Satan  and  his  angels.  It  is  true  therefore,  in 
the  ^  highest  sense,  that  what  the  heathen  offer  they  offer  to 
devils.  ^  Although  their  gods  have  no  existence,  yet  there  are 
real  beings,  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  wicked 
spirits  in  heavenly  places  (Eph.  6, 12),  on  whom  their  worship 
terminates. 

And  I  would  not  that  ye  have  fellowship  with  devils.  By 
fellowship  or  communion,  the  apostle  means  here  what  he 
meant  by  the  same  term  in  the  preceding  verses.  We  are 
said  to  have  fellowship  with  those  between  whom  and  us  there 
are  congeniality  of  mind,  community  of  interest,  and  friendly 
intercourse.  In  this  sense  we  have  fellowship  with  our  fellow 
Christians,  with  God  and  with  his  Son.  And  in  this  sense  the 
worshippers  of  idols  have  fellowship  with  evil  spirits.  They 
9 


194  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  20.21. 

are  united  to  them  so  as  to  form  one  community,  with  a  com 
mon  character  and  a  common  destiny.  Into  this  state  of  fel 
lowship  they  are  brought  by  sacrificing  to  them ;  that  is,  by 
idolatry,  which  is  an  act  of  apostasy  from  the  true  God,  and 
of  association  with  the  kingdom  of  darkness.  It  was  of  great 
importance  for  the  Corinthians  to  know  that  it  did  not  depend 
on  their  intention  whether  they  came  into  communion  with 
devils.  The  heathen  did  not  intend  to  worship  devils,  and 
yet  they  did  it ;  what  would  it  avail,  therefore,  to  the  reckless 
Corinthians,  who  attended  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  heathen, 
to  say  that  they  did  not  intend  to  worship  idols  ?  The  ques 
tion  was  not,  what  they  meant  to  do,  but  what  they  did ;  not, 
what  their  intention  was,  but  what  was  the  import  and  effect 
of  their  conduct.  A  man  need  not  intend  to  burn  himself 
when  he  puts  his  hand  into  the  fire ;  or  to  pollute  his  soul 
when  he  frequents  the  haunts  of  vice.  The  effect  is  altogether 
independent  of  his  intention.  .  This  principle  applies  with  all 
its  force  to  compliance  with  the  religious  services  of  the 
heathen  at  the  present  day.  Those  who  in  pagan  countries 
join  in  the  religious  rites  of  the  heathen,  are  just  as  much 
guilty  of  idolatry,  and  are  just  as  certainly  brought  into  fel 
lowship  with  devils,  as  the  nominal  Christians  of  Corinth, 
who,  although  they  knew  that  an  idol  was  nothing,  and  that 
there  is  but  one  God,  yet  frequented  the  heathen  feasts.  The 
same  principle  also  applies  to  the  compliance  of  Protestants  in 
the  religious  observances  of  Papists.  Whatever  their  inten 
tion  may  be,  they  worship  the  host  if  they  bow  down  to  it 
with  the  crowd  who  intend  to  adore  it.  By  the  force  of  the 
act  Ave  become  one  with  those  in  whose  worship  we  join.  We 
constitute  with  them  and  with  the  objects  of  their  worship  one 
communion. 

21.  Ye  cannot  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
cup  of  devils :  ye  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's 
table,  and  of  the  table  of  devils. 

The  cup  of  the  Lord  is  that  cup  which  brings  us  into  com 
munion  with  the  Lord,  v.  16 ;  the  cup  of  devils  is  that  cup 
which  brings  us  into  communion  with  devils.  The  reference 
is  not  exclusively  or  specially  to  the  cup  of  libation,  or  to  the 
wine  poured  out  as  an  offering  to  the  gods,  but  to  the  ^cup 
from  which  the  guests  drank  at  these  sacrificial  feasts.  ^  ^The 
whole  service  had  a  religious  character ;  all  the  provisions, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  21.22.  195 

the  wine  as  well  as  the  meat,  were  blessed  in  the  name  of  the 
idol,  and  thereby  consecrated  to  him,  in  a  manner  analogous 
to  that  in  which  the  bread  and  the  wine  on  the  Lord's  table 
were  consecrated  to  him;  comp.  1  Sam.  9,  12.  13.  The  table 
of  the  Lord  is  the  table  at  which  the  Lord  presides,  and  at 
which  his  people  are  his  guests.  The  table  of  devils  is  the 
table  at  which  devils  preside,  and  at  which  all  present  are 
their  guests.  What  the  apostle  means  to  say  is,  that  there  is 
not  merely  an  incongruity  and  inconsistency  in  a  man's  being 
the  guest  and  friend  of  Christ  and  the  guest  and  friend  of  evil 
spirits,  but  that  the  thing  is  impossible.  It  is  as  impossible 
as  that  the  same  man  should  be  black  and  wrhite,  wicked  and 
holy  at  the  same  time.  In  neither  case  is  this  attendance  an 
empty,  ineffective  service.  A  man  cannot  eat  of  the  table  of 
demons  without  being  brought  under  their  power  and  influ 
ence  ;  nor  can  we  eat  of  the  table  of  the  Lord,  without  being 
brought  into  contact  with  him,  either  to  our  salvation  or  con 
demnation.  If  we  come  thoughtlessly,  without  any  desire 
after  communion  with  Christ,  we  eat  and  drink  judgment  to 
ourselves.  But  if  we  come  with  a  humble  desire  to  obey  our 
divine  master  and  to  seek  his  presence,  we  cannot  fail  to  be 
welcomed  and  blessed.  Compare,  in  reference  to  this  verse, 
2  Cor.  6,  14-18. 

22.  Bo  we  provoke  the  Lord  to  jealousy?  are  we 
stronger  than  lie  ? 

Jealousy  is  the  feeling  which  arises  from  wounded  love, 
and  is  the  fiercest  of  all  human  passions.  It  is  therefore  em 
ployed  as  an  illustration  of  the  hatred  of  God  towards  idola 
try.  It  is  as  wiien  a  bride  transfers  her  affections  from  her 
lawful  husband,  in  every  way  worthy  of  her  love,  to  some  de 
graded  and  offensive  object.  This  illustration,  feeble  as  it  is, 
is  the  most  effective  that  can  be  borrowed  from  human  rela 
tions,  and  is  often  employed  in  Scripture  to  set  forth  the  hein- 
ousness  of  the  sin  of  idolatry.  Deut.  32,  21.  Ps.  78,  58  and 
elsewhere.  Or  do  ice  provoke,  i.  e.  is  it  our  object  to  provoke 
the  Lord  to  jealousy.  The  Corinthians  ought  not  to  attend 
these  feasts  unless  they  intended  to  excite  against  themselves 
in  the  highest  measure  the  displeasure  of  the  Lord.  And  they 
ought  not  thus  to  excite  his  anger,  unless  they  were  stronger 
than  he.  By  the  Lord  is  to  be  understood  Christ,  as  the  con 
text  requires.  It  was  the  Lord's  table  that  was  forsaken, 


196  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  22.23. 

and  the  same  Lord  that  was  provoked  thereby  to  jealousy. 
Here,  again,  the  relation  in  which  Christians  stand  to  Christ, 
is  said  to  be  analogous  to  that  in  which  the  Israelites  stood  to 
Jehovah.  Christ  is  therefore  our  Jehovah.  He  is  our  hus 
band,  to  whom  our  supreme  affection  is  due,  and  who  loves  us 
as  a  husband  loves  his  wife.  "  Thy  maker  is  thy  husband, 
Jehovah  is  his  name,"  Is.  54,  5  ;  see  Eph.  5,  25-31. 

Under  what  circumstances  it  was  lawful  to  eat  meat  offered 
to  idols.    Vs.  23-33. 

The  apostle  having,  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  proved 
that  eating  of  the  sacrifices  offered  to  idols  under  circum 
stances  which  gave  a  religious  character  to  the  act,  was  idol 
atry,  comes  to  state  the  circumstances  under  which  those 
sacrifices  might  be  eaten  without  scruple.  He  begins  by  re 
verting  to  the  general  law  of  Christian  liberty  stated  with  the 
same  limitations  as  in  ch.  6,  12.  The  right  to  use  things 
offered  to  idols,  as  well  as  other  things  in  themselves  indiffer 
ent,  is  limited  by  expediency.  We  should  be  governed  in  this 
matter  by  a  regard  to  the  good  of  others,  and  to  our  own 
edification,  vs.  23.  24.  If  the  meat  of  sacrifices  be  sold  in  the 
market,  v.  25,  or  found  at  private  tables,  it  may  be  eaten  with 
out  any  hesitation,  v.  27.  But  if  any  one  at  a  private  table, 
from  scruples  on  the  subject,  should  apprise  us  that  a  certain 
dish  contained  part  of  a  sacrifice,  for  his  sake,  and  not  for  our 
own,  we  ought  to  abstain,  v.  28.  We  should  not  make  such 
a  use  of  our  liberty  as  to  cause  our  good  to  be  evil  spoken  of, 
v.  29.  The  general  rule  of  action,  not  only  as  to  meats  and 
drinks,  but  as  to  all  other  things  is,  first,  to  act  with  a  regard 
to  the  glory  of  God,  v.  31 ;  and  secondly,  so  as  to  avoid  giv 
ing  offence  (i.  e.  occasion  for  sin)  to  any  class  of  men,  v.  32. 
In  this  matter  Paul  presents  himself  as  an  example  to  his 
fellow-believers,  v.  33. 

23.  All  things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  all  things  are 
not  expedient :  ah1  things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  all 
things  edify  not. 

The  apostle  had  already,  in  ch.  6,  12,  and  in  ch.  8,  con 
ceded  that  eating  of  the  sacrifices  offered  to  idols,  was,  in 
itself,  a  matter  of  indifference.  But  the  use  of  things  indiffer 
ent  is  limited  by  two  principles ;  first,  a  regard  to  the  welfare 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  23.24.25.  197 

of  others ;  secondly,  regard  to  our  own  welfare.  The  word 
(<rvfji.<f>epci)  is  expedient  expresses  the  one  of  these  ideas,  and 
(oiKoSo/m)  ed'tjieth  the  other.  All  things  are  not  expedient 
or  useful  to  others ;  and  all  things  are  not  edifying  to  our 
selves.  The  latter  phrase  might  indeed  have  reference  to 
others  as  well  as  to  ourselves — but  as  contrasted  with  the 
former  clause,  it  appears  to  be  used  here  with  this  restricted 
application.  In  this  view  it  agrees  with  the  clause,  "  I  will 
not  be  brought  under  the  power  of  any  thing,"  in  6,  12. 

24.  Let  no  man  seek  his  own,  but  every  man 
another's  (wealth). 

That  is,  let  every  man,  in  the  use  of  his  liberty,  have  re 
gard  to  the  welfare  of  others.  The  maxim  is  indeed  general. 
It  is  not  only  in  the  use  of  things  indifferent,  but  in  all  other 
things  we  should  act,  not,  in  exclusive  regard  to  our  own  in 
terests,  but  also  with  a  view  to  the  good  of  others.  Self,  in 
other  words,  is  not  to  be  the  object  of  our  actions.  The  con 
text,  however,  shows,  that  the  apostle  intended  the  maxim  to 
be  applied  to  the  subject  under  discussion.  Another's  wealth, 
i.  e.  another's  weal  or  welfare,  according  to  the  old  meaning 
of  the  word  wealth. 

25.  Whatsoever  is  sold  in  the  shambles,  (that)  eat, 
asking  no  question  for  conscience'  sake  : 

The  general  principle  that  sacrifices  might  be  eaten  under 
any  circumstances  which  deprived  the  act  of  a  religious  char 
acter,  is  here,  and  in  what  follows,  applied  to  particular  cases. 
Meat,  when  exposed  for  public  sale  in  the  market,  lost  its 
character  as  a  sacrifice,  and  might  be  eaten  with  impunity. 
The  word  /xaKeAW  is  a  Latin  word  which  passed  into  the 
Greek,  and  means  a  meat  market. 

Eat,  asking  no  questions  for  conscience?  sake.  This  clause 
admits  of  three  interpretations.  1.  It  may  mean,  'When  you 
go  to  the  market,  buy  what  you  want,  and  make  no  matter 
of  conscience  about  the  matter.  You  need  have  no  conscien 
tious  scruples,  and  therefore  ask  no  questions  as  to  whether 
the  meat  had  been  offered  to  idols  or  not.'  This  is  the  sim 
plest  and  most  natural  interpretation.  These  verses  contain 
the  conclusion  of  the  whole  discussion.  An  idol  is  nothing; 
the  sacrifices  are  nothing  sacred  in  themselves ;  but  as  the 


198  I.  CORINTHIANS    10,  25.26. 

heathen  are  really  worshippers  of  evil  spirits,  to  join  in  their 
worship  by  eating  their  sacrifices  as  sacrifices,  is  idolatry  ;  but 
to  eat  them  as  meat  is  a  matter  of  indifference ;  therefore  do 
not  make  it  a  matter  of  conscience.  This  interpretation  is 
confirmed  by  the  following  verse,  which  assigns  the  reason 
why  we  need  have  no  scruples  in  the  case.  2.  Or,  the  mean 
ing  may  be,  Ask  no  questions,  for  fear  of  awakening  scruples 
in  your  own  mind.  A  man  might  eat  with  a  good  conscience 
of  meat  which  he  knew  not  was  a  sacrifice,  when  he  would 
have  serious  scruples  if  informed  that  it  had  been  offered  to 
an  idol.  Therefore  it  was  wise,  for  his  own  sake,  to  ask  no 
questions.  Paul,  however,  would  not  advise  men  to  act  blind 
fold.  If  a  man  thought  it  wrong  to  eat  meat  offered  to  idols, 
it  would  be  wrong  for  him  to  run  the  risk  of  doing  so  by  buy 
ing  meat  in  the  markets  where  sacrifices  were  exposed  for 
sale.  3.  Others  say  the  apostle  means  to  caution  the  strong 
against  instituting  such  inquiries,  for  fear  of  giving  rise  to 
scruples  in  others.  In  favour  of  this  view  it  is  urged,  that 
throughout  the  whole  discussion  the  object  of  the  apostle  is 
to  induce  the  strong  to  respect  the  conscientious  scruples  of 
the  weak.  And  in  v.  29  he  says  expressly,  that  he  means  the 
conscience  of  others.  The  former  of  these  considerations  has 
not  much  weight,  for  we  have  here  general  directions  suited 
to  all  classes.  Having  shown  in  the  preceding  paragraph, 
that  it  was  idolatrous  to  eat  of  these  sacrifices  under  certain 
circumstances,  it  was  perfectly  natural  that  he  should  tell  both 
the  strong  and  the  weak  when  they  might  be  eaten  without 
scruple.  As  to  the  second  argument,  it  is  rather  against  than 
in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  For  if,  when  he  means  the 
conscience  of  another,  he  expressly  says  so,  the  inference  is, 
that  when  he  makes  no  such  explanation,  he  means  the  man's 
own  conscience.  Besides,  the  following  verse  gives  the  reason 
why  we  need  not  have  any  scruples  in  the  case,  and  not  why 
we  should  regard  the  scruples  of  others. 

26.  For  the  earth  (is)  the  Lord's,  and  the  fulness 
thereof. 

This  was  the  common  form  of  acknowledgment  among  the 
Jews  before  meals.  It  was  the  recognition  of  God  as  the  pro 
prietor  and  giver  of  all  things,  and  specially  of  the  food  pro 
vided  for  his  children.  The  words  are  taken  from  Ps.  24, 1. 
The  fulness  of  the  earth  is  that  by  which  it  is  filled ;  all  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  26.17.28.  199 

fruits  and  animals  with  which  it  is  replenished ;  which  were 
created  by  God,  and  therefore  good.  Nothing,  therefore,  can 
in  itself  be  polluting,  if  used  in  obedience  to  the  design  of  its 
creation.  And  as  the  animals  offered  in  sacrifice  were  in 
tended  to  be  food  for  man,  they  cannot  defile  those  who  use 
them  for  that  purpose.  This  is  the  reason  which  the  apostle 
gives  to  show  that,  so  far  as  God  is  concerned,  the  Corinthians 
need  entertain  no  scruples  hi  eating  meat  that  had  been  offered 
to  idols.  It  was  a  creature  of  God,  and  therefore  not  to  be 
regarded  as  unclean.  Comp.  1  Tim.  4,  4,  where  the  same  doc 
trine  is  taught,  and  for  the  same  purpose. 

27.  If  any  of  them  that  believe  not  bid  you  (to  a 
feast),  and  ye  be  disposed  to  go  ;  whatsoever  is  set  be 
fore  you,  eat,  asking  no  question  for  conscience'  sake. 

As  the  sacrifices  lost  their  religious  character  when  sold  in 
the  market,  so  also  at  any  private  table  they  were  to  be  re 
garded  not  as  sacrifices,  but  as  ordinary  food,  and  might  be 
eaten  without  scruple.  The  apostle  did  not  prohibit  the 
Christians  from  social  intercourse  with  the  heathen.  If  invited 
to  their  tables,  they  were  at  liberty  to  go. 

28.  But  if  any  man  say  unto  you,  This  is  offered  in 
sacrifice  unto  idols,  eat  not  for  his  sake  that  shewed  it, 
and  for  conscience'  sake  :  for  the  earth  (is)  the  Lord's, 
and  the  fulness  thereof: 

This  is  an  exception.  They  might  without  scruple  eat  any 
thing  set  before  them.  But  if  any  of  the  guests  apprised  them 
that  a  particular  dish  contained  meat  which  had  been  offered 
to  an  idol,  out  of  regard  to  the  conscientious  scruples  of  him 
who  made  the  intimation,  they  should  abstain.  But,  on  the 
contrary,  if  any  one.  That  is,  any  of  your  fellow-guests.  The 
only  person  likely  to  make  the  suggestion  was  a  scrupulous 
Christian.  For  his  sake  that  showed  it  and  for  conscience^ 
sake •  the  latter  clause  is  explanatory.  '  On  account  of  him 
making  the  intimation,  i.  e.  on  account  of  his  conscience.' 
Though  it  is  right  to  eat,  and  though  you  know  it  to  be  right, 
yet,  to  avoid  wounding  or  disturbing  the  conscience  of  your 
weaker  brother,  it  is  your  duty  to  abstain.  The  union  of  the 
most  enlightened  liberality  with  the  humblest  concession  to 


200  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  28.  29.  30. 

the  weakness  of  others,  exhibited  in  this  whole  connection, 
may  well  excite  the  highest  admiration.  The  most  enlight 
ened  man  of  his  whole  generation,  was  the  most  yielding  and 
conciliatory  in  all  matters  of  indifference. 

The  clause,  "  For  the  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fulness 
thereof,"  at  the  end  of  this  verse,  is  not  found  in  the  best 
manuscripts,  and  therefore  omitted  in  all  the  critical  editions 
of  the  Greek  Testament.  They  seem  to  be  here  entirely  out 
of  place.  In  verse  26  they  assign  the  reason  why  the  Corin 
thians  might  eat  without  scruple  whatever  was  sold  in  the 
market.  But  here  they  have  no  connection  with  what  pre 
cedes.  The  fact  that  the  earth  is  the  Lord's,  is  no  reason  why 
we  should  not  eat  of  sacrificial  meat  out  of  regard  to  a 
brother's  conscience.  There  is  little  doubt,  therefore,  that  it 
should  be  omitted. 

29,  30.  Conscience,  I  say,  not  thine  own,  but  of 
the  other:  for  why  is  my  liberty  judged  of  another 
(man's)  conscience  ?  Tor  if  I  by  grace  be  a  partaker, 
why  am  I  evil  spoken  of  for  that  for  which  I  give 
thanks  ? 

As  in  the  preceding  vs.  25.  27  the  word  conscience  refers 
to  one's  own  conscience,  to  prevent  its  being  so  understood  in 
v.  28,  Paul  adds  the  explanation,  '  Conscience,  I  say,  not  thine 
own,  but  of  the  other's.'  That  is,  '  I  do  not  mean  your  con 
science,  but  the  conscience  of  the  man  who  warned  you  not  to 
eat.'  For  why  is  my  liberty  judged  of  another  man's  con 
science  f  These  and  the  words  following  admit  of  three  inter 
pretations.  1.  If  connected  with  the  preceding  clause,  they 
must  give  the  reason  why  Paul  meant  "  the  conscience  of  the 
other."  '  Conscience  I  say,  not  one's  own,  but  of  the  other  ; 
for  why  is  my  liberty  (or  conscience)  to  be  judged  by  an 
other  man's  conscience  ?  if  I  eat  with  thanksgiving  (and  with 
a  good  conscience,  why  am  I  blamed  ? ' )  The  obvious  objec 
tion  to  this  interpretation  is,  that  it  exalts  a  subordinate  clause 
into  the  principal  matter.  It  was  plain  enough  that  Paul  did 
not  mean  the  man's  own  conscience,  and  therefore  it  is  unne 
cessary  to  take  up  two  verses  to  prove  that  he  did  not.  Be 
sides,  this  interpretation  makes  the  apostle  change  sides.  He 
has  from  the  beginning  been  speaking  in  behalf  of  the  weak. 
This  interpretation  makes  him  here  speak  almost  in  terms  of 


I.  CORINTHIANS  10,  30.31.  201 

indignation  in  behalf  of  the  strong,  who  certainly  need  no  ad 
vocate.  They  did  not  require  to  be  told  that  their  liberty 
was  not  to  be  restricted  by  the  scruples  of  the  weak.  2.  A 
much  better  sense  is  obtained  by  connecting  this  passage  with 
the  28th  verse.  c  Do  not  eat  out  of  regard  to  the  conscience 
of  your  brother ;  for  why  should  my  (your)  liberty  be  judged 
(i.  e.  condemned)  by  another  conscience ;  why  should  I  be 
blamed  for  what  I  receive  with  thanksgiving  ? '  That  is,  why 
should  I  make  such  a  use  of  my  liberty  as  to  give  offence  ? 
This  brings  the  passage  into  harmony  with  the  whole  context, 
and  connects  it  with  the  main  idea  of  the  preceding  verse, 
and  not  with  an  intermediate  and  subordinate  clause.  The 
very  thing  the  apostle  has  in  view  is  to  induce  the  strong  to 
respect  the  scruples  of  the  weak.  They  might  eat  of  sacrifi 
cial  meat  at  private  tables  with  freedom,  so  far  as  they  them 
selves  were  concerned  ;  but  why,  he  asks,  should  they  do  it  so 
as  to  give  offence,  arid  cause  the  weak  to  condemn  and  speak 
evil  of  them.  3.  This  passage  is  by  some  commentators  re 
garded  as  the  language  of  an  objector,  and  not  as  that  of  the 
apostle.  The  strong,  when  told  not  to  eat  on  account  of  the 
conscience  of  a  weak  brother,  might  ask,  '  Why  is  my  liberty 
judged  by  another's  conscience — why  should  I  be  blamed  for 
what  I  receive  with  thanksgiving  ? '  (The  yap,  according  to 
this  view,  is  not /or,  but  intensive,  IVO.TL  yap,  why  then.)  This 
gives  a  very  good  sense,  but  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  fol 
lowing  verse  (which  is  connected  with  v.  30  by  ovv,  and  not 
by  Se).  Paul  does  not  go  on  to  answer  that  objection,  but 
considers  the  whole  matter  settled.  The  second  interpreta 
tion  is  the  only  one  consistent  alike  with  what  precedes  and 
with  what  follows.  c  Do  not  eat  when  cautioned  not  to  do  so  ; 
for  why  should  you  so  use  your  liberty  as  to  incur  censure  ? 
Whether  therefore  you  eat  or  drink,  do  all  for  the  glory  of 
God.'  Why  is  my  liberty  judged  (KptVerat),  i.  e.  judged  unfa 
vourably  or  condemned.  If  I  by  grace  am  a  partaker;  liter 
ally,  if  I  partake  with  thanksgiving.  The  word  x^P^,  grace, 
is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  gratia,  thanks,  as  in  the  common 
phrase  to  say  grace.  See  Luke  6,  32.  1  Tim.  1,  12,  &c. 

31.  Whether  therefore  ye  eat,  or  drink,  or  whatso 
ever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God. 

This  may  mean  either,  c  Do  all  things  with  a  view  to  the 
glory  of  God.'     Let  that  be  the  object  constantly  aimed  at; 

9* 


202  I.   CORINTHIANS   10,  31.32. 

or,  l  Do  all  things  in  such  a  way  that  God  may  be  glorified.' 
There  is  little  diilerence  between  these  modes  of  explanation. 
God  cannot  be  glorified  by  our  conduct  unless  it  be  our  ob 
ject  to  act  for  his  glory.  The  latter  interpretation  is  favoured 
by  a  comparison  with  1  Peter  4,  11,  "That  God  in  all  things 
may  be  glorified."  See  Col.  3,  17.  Ah1  the  special  directions 
given  in  the  preceding  discussion  are  here  summed  up.  '  Let 
self  be  forgotten.  Let  your  eye  be  fixed  on  God.  Let  the 
promotion  of  his  glory  be  your  object  in  all  you  do.  Strive 
in  every  thing  to  act  in  such  a  way  that  men  may  praise  that 
God  whom  you  profess  to  serve.'  The  sins  of  the  people  of 
God  are  always  spoken  of  as  bringing  reproach  on  God  him 
self.  Rom.  2,  24.  Ezek.  36,  20.  23.  It  is  by  thus  having  the 
desire  to  promote  the  glory  of  God  as  the  governing  motive 
of  our  lives,  that  order  and  harmony  are  introduced  into  all 
our  actions.  The  sun  is  then  the  centre  of  the  system.  Men 
of  the  world  have  themselves  for  the  end  of  their  actions. 
Philosophers  tell  us  to  make  the  good  of  others  the  end ;  and 
thus  destroy  the  sentiment  of  religion,  by  merging  it  into  phi 
lanthropy  or  benevolence.  The  Bible  tells  us  to  make  the 
glory  of  God  the  end.  This  secures  the  other  ends  by  making 
them  subordinate,  while  at  the  same  time  it  exalts  the  soul 
by  placing  before  it  an  infinite  personal  object.  There  is  all 
the  difference  between  making  the  glory  of  God  (the  personal 
Jehovah)  the  end  of  our  actions,  and  the  good  of  the  universe, 
or  of  being  in  general,  that  there  is  between  the  love  of  Christ 
and  the  love  of  an  abstract  idea.  The  one  is  religion,  the 
other  is  morality. 

32.  Give  none  offence,  neither  to  the  Jews,  nor  to 
the  Gentiles,  nor  to  the  church  of  God  : 

Give  none  offence,  i.  e.  give  no  occasion  to  sin.  An  offence 
is  something  over  which  men  stumble.  The  exhortation  is  to 
avoid  being  the  cause  of  sin  to  others,  8,  9.  Rom.  14,  13.  21. 
They  were  to  be  thus  careful  with  respect  to  all  classes  of 
men,  Christians  and  non-Christians.  The  latter  are  divided 
into  the  two  great  classes,  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  church 
of  God,  i.  e.  his  people.  Those  whom  God  has  called  out  of 
the  world  to  be  his  peculiar  possession.  They  are  therefore 
distinguished  as  the  KX-TJTOL,  the  called,  or,  collectively  consid 
ered,  the  eKKArjo-ia,  the  church.  The  first  great  principle  of  Chris 
tian  conduct  is  to  promote  the  glory  of  God ;  the  second  is 


I.   CORINTHIANS   10,  32.33.  203 

to  avoid  giving  offence,  or  causing  men  to  sin.  In  other 
words,  love  to  God  and  love  to  men  should  govern  all  our 
conduct. 

33.  Even  as  I  please  all  (men)  in  all  (things),  not 
seeking  mine  own  profit,  but  the  (profit)  of  many,  that 
they  may  be  saved. 

What  he  urged  them  to  do,  he  himself  did.  His  object 
was  not  his  own  advantage,  but  the  benefit  of  others.  He 
therefore,  in  all  things  allowable,  accommodated  himself  to  all 
men,  that  they  might  be  saved.  "  I  am  made  all  things  to  all 
men,  that  I  might  by  all  means  save  some."  9,  22. 

The  principle  which  the  apostle  here  avows,  and  which  he 
so  strenuously  recommends  in  the  preceding  chapters,  is  one 
which  has  often  been  lamentably  perverted.  On  the  plea  of 
becoming  all  things  to  all  men,  Christians  are  tempted  into 
sinful  conformity  with  the  habits  and  amusements  of  the 
world.  On  the  same  plea  the  church  of  Rome  adopted  hea 
then  festivals,  ceremonies  and  rites,  until  the  distinction  be 
tween  Paganism  and  Christianity  was  little  more  than  nomi 
nal.  Heathen  temples  were  called  churches ;  pagan  gods 
were  baptized  as  saints,  and  honored  as  before.  Modern 
Rome,  in  the  apprehension  of  the  people,  is  almost  as  polythe 
istic  as  ancient  Rome.  In  like  manner  Romish  missionaries 
accommodate  themselves  to  such  a  degree  to  heathen  ideas 
and  forms,  that  the  difference  between  what  they  call  Chris 
tianity  and  the  religion  of  the  country  is  almost  lost.  Even 
Protestant  missionaries  arc  often  perplexed  how  to  decide  be 
tween  what  is  to  be  tolerated  and  what  prohibited  of  the  pre 
vious  usages  and  ceremonies  of  their  converts.  That  the 
principle  on  which  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  acted  in  refer 
ence  to  this  matter,  is  radically  different  from  that  adopted 
by  the  church  of  Rome,  is  apparent  from  their  different  re 
sults.  Rome  has  become  paganized.  The  apostle  so  acted  as 
to  preserve  the  church  from  every  taint  of  either  Paganism  or 
Judaism.  The  rules  which  guided  the  apostles  may  be  easily 
deduced  from  the  conduct  and  epistles  of  Paul.  1.  They  ac 
commodated  themselves  to  Jewish  or  Gentile  usages  only  in 
matters  of  indifference.  2.  They  abstained  from  all  accommo 
dation  even  in  things  indifferent,  under  circumstances  which 
gave  to  those  things  a  religious  import.  They  allowed  sacri 
fices  to  be  eaten;  but  eating  within  a  temple  was  forbidden. 


204  I.  CORINTHIANS  10,33.  11,1. 

3.  They  conceded  when  the  concession  was  not  demanded  as 
a  matter  of  necessity ;  but  refused  when  it  was  so  regarded. 
Paul  said  circumcision  was  nothing  and  uncircumcision  was 
nothing;  yet  he  resisted  the  circumcision  of  Titus  when  it 
was  demanded  by  the  Judaizers.  4.  The  object  of  their  con 
cessions  was  not  to  gain  mere  nominal  converts,  nor  to  do 
away  with  the  ofience  of  the  cross,  Gal.  4, 11,  but  to  save  men. 
No  concession  therefore,  whether  to  the  manners  of  the  world 
or  to  the  prejudices  of  the  ignorant,  can  plead  the  sanction  of 
apostolic  example,  which  has  not  that  object  honestly  in  view. 
5.  It  is  included  in  the  above  particulars  that  Paul,  in  becom 
ing  all  things  to  all  men,  never  compromised  any  truth  01 
sanctioned  any  error. 

XL,  1.  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  even  as  I  also  (am) 
of  Christ. 

This  verse  should  belong  to  the  tenth  chapter,  as  it  is  the 
conclusion  of  the  preceding  discussion,  and  as  a  new  subject  is 
introduced  with  the  following  verse.  Paul  had  referred  to  his 
own  conciliatory  conduct  as  an  example  to  the  Corinthians, 
and  he  exhorts  them  to  imitate  him,  as  he  did  Christ,  who  is 
the  ultimate  standard. 


CHAPTEE  XI. 

The  impropriety  of  women  appearing  unveiled  in  the  public  assemblies,  vs. 
2-16.  The  improper  manner  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  which  pre 
vailed  in  the  Corinthian  church,  vs.  17-34. 

On  the  impropriety  of  women  appearing  in  public  unveiled, 
vs.  2-16. 

HAVING  corrected  the  more  private  abuses  which  prevailed 
among  the  Corinthians,  the  apostle  begins  in  this  chapter  to 
consider  those  which  relate  to  the  mode  of  conducting  public 
worship.  The  first  of  these  is  the  habit  of  women  appearing 
in  public  without  a  veil.  Dress  is  in  a  great  degree  conven 
tional.  A  costume  which  is  proper  in  one  country,  would  be 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  2.  205 

indecorous  in  another.  The  principle  insisted  upon  in  this 
paragraph  is,  that  women  should  conform  in  matters  of  dress 
to  all  those  usages  which  the  public  sentiment  of  the  commu 
nity  in  which  they  live  demands.  The  veil  in  all  eastern  coun 
tries  was,  and  to  a  great  extent  still  is,  the  symbol  of  modesty 
and  subjection.  For  a  woman,  therefore,  in  Corinth  to  dis 
card  the  veil  was  to  renounce  her  claim  to  modesty,  and  to 
refuse  to  recognize  her  subordination  to  her  husband.  It  is 
on  the  assumption  of  this  significancy  in  the  use  of  the  veil, 
that  the  apostle's  whole  argument  in  this  paragraph  is  founded. 
He  begins  by  praising  the  Corinthians  for  their  obedience  in 
general  to  his  instructions,  v.  2.  He  then  reminds  them  of 
the  divinely  constituted  subordination  of  the  woman  to  the 
man,  v.  3.  Consequently  it  was  disgraceful  in  the  man  to  as 
sume  the  symbol  of  subordination,  and  disgraceful  in  the 
woman  to  discard  it,  vs.  4.  5.  If  the  veil  were  discarded  as 
the  symbol  of  subordination,  it  must  also  be  discarded  as  the 
symbol  of  modesty.  An  unveiled  woman,  therefore,  in  Corinth 
proclaimed  herself  as  not  only  insubordinate,  but  as  immodest, 
v.  6.  The  man  ought  not  to  wear  a  veil  because  he  represents 
the  authority  of  God  ;  but  the  woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man, 
v.  7.  This  subordination  is  proved  by  the  very  history  of  her 
creation.  Eve  was  formed  out  of  Adam,  and  made  for  him, 
vs.  8.  9.  and,  therefore,  women  should  wear,  especially  in  the 
religious  assemblies  where  angels  are  present,  the  conventional 
symbol  of  their  relation,  v.  10.  This  subordination,  however, 
of  the  woman  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  essential  equality 
and  mutual  dependence  of  the  sexes.  Neither  is,  or  can  be, 
without  the  other,  vs.  11.12.  The  apostle  next  appeals  to 
their  instinctive  sense  of  propriety,  which  taught  them  that, 
as  it  is  disgraceful  in  a  man  to  appear  in  the  costume  of  a 
woman,  so  it  is  disgraceful  in  a  woman  to  appear  in  the  cos 
tume  of  a  man,  vs.  13-15.  Finally  he  appeals  to  authority; 
the  custom  which  he  censured  was  contrary  to  the  universal 
practice  of  Christians,  v.  16. 

2.  Now  I  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ye  remember 
me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordinances,  as  I  deliv 
ered  (them)  to  you. 

Now  I  praise  you.  The  particle  (Se)  rendered  now,  either 
simply  indicates  the  transition  to  a  new  subject,  or  it  is  ad 
versative.  '  Though  I  exhort  you  to  imitate  me  as  though 


206  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  2.3. 

you  were  deficient,  yet  I  praise  you  that  you  remember  me/' 
The  Corinthians,  although  backward  in  following  the  self- 
denial  and  conciliatory  conduct  of  the  apostle,  were  neverthe 
less  in  general  mindful  of  the  ordinances  or  rules  which  he  had 
delivered  to  them.  The  word  (TrapaSocns)  tradition,  here  ren 
dered  ordinance,  is  used  not  only  for  instructions  orally  trans 
mitted  from  generation  to  generation,  as  in  Matt.  15,  2.  3.  6, 
but  for  any  instruction,  whether  relating  to  faith  or  practice, 
and  whether  delivered  orally  or  in  writing.  2  Thess.  2,  15. 
3,  6.  In  reference  to  the  rule  of  faith  it  is  never  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  except  for  the  immediate  instructions  of  in 
spired  men.  When  used  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word  tra 
dition,  it  is  always  in  reference  to  what  is  human  and  untrust 
worthy,  Gal.  1,  14.  Col.  2,  8,  and  frequently  in  the  gospels  of 
the  traditions  of  the  elders. 

3.  But  I  would  have  you  know,  that  the  head  of 
every  man  is  Christ ;  and  the  head  of  the  woman  (is) 
the  man  ;  and  the  head  of  Christ  (is)  God. 

Though  the  apostle  praised  the  Corinthians  for  their  gen 
eral  obedience  to  his  prescriptions,  yet  there  were  many  things 
in  which  they  were  deserving  of  censure.  Before  mentioning 
the  thing  which  he  intended  first  to  condemn,  he  states  the 
principle  on  which  that  condemnation  rested ;  so  that,  by  as 
senting  to  the  principle,  they  could  not  fail  to  assent  to  the 
conclusion  to  which  it  necessarily  led.  That  principle  is,  that 
order  and  subordination  pervade  the  whole  universe,  and  is 
essential  to  its  being.  The  head  of  the  man  is  Christ ;  the 
head  of  the  woman  is  the  man  ;  the  head  of  Christ  is  God.  If 
this  concatenation  be  disturbed  in  any  of  its  parts,  ruin  must 
be  the  result.  The  head  is  that  on  which  the  body  is  depend 
ent,  arid  to  which  it  is  subordinate.  The  obvious  meaning  of 
this  passage  is,  that  the  woman  is  subordinate  to  the  man,  the 
man  is  subordinate  to  Christ,  and  Christ  is  subordinate  to  God. 
It  is  further  evident,  that  this  subordination  is  very  different 
in  its  nature  in  the  several  cases  mentioned.  The  subordina 
tion  of  the  woman  to  the  man  is  something  entirely  different 
from  that  of  the  man  to  Christ ;  and  that  again  is  at  an  infinite 
degree  more  complete  than  the  subordination  of  Christ  to  God. 
And  still  further,  as  the  subordination  of  the  woman  to  the 
man  is  perfectly  consistent  with  their  identity  as  to  nature,  so 
is  the  subordination  of  Christ  to  God  consistent  with  his  being 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  3.4.  207 

of  the  same  nature  with  the  Father.  There  is  nothing,  there 
fore,  in  this  passage,  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  true  and 
proper  divinity  of  our  blessed  Lord.  For  a  brief  statement 
of  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  Christ  to  God,  sec 
the  comments  on  3,  23.  It  need  here  be  only  further  re 
marked,  that  the  word  Christ  is  the  designation,  not  of  the 
Logos  or  second  person  of  the  Trinity  as  such,  nor  of  the  hu 
man  nature  of  Christ  as  such,  but  of  the  Theanthropos,  the 
God-man.  It  is  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  who,  in  the  great 
work  of  redemption,  is  said  to  be  subordinate  to  the  Father, 
whose  will  he  came  into  the  world  to  do.  When  Christ  is 
said  to  be  the  head  of  every  man,  the  meaning  is  of  every  be 
liever  ;  because  it  is  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  church,  and 
not  to  the  human  family,  that  is  characteristically  expressed 
by  this  term.  He  is  the  head  of  that  body  which  is  the  church, 
Col.  1,  18.  Eph.  1,  22.  23. 

4.  Every  man  praying  or  prophesying,  having  (his) 
head  covered,  dishonoureth  his  head. 

Such  being  the  order  divinely  established,  (viz.,  that  men 
tioned  in  v.  3,)  both  men  and  women  should  act  in  accordance 
with  it ;  the  man,  by  having  the  head  uncovered,  the  woman 
by  being  veiled.  As  the  apostle  refers  to  their  appearance  in 
public  assemblies,  he  says,  Every  man  praying  or  prophesy 
ing.,  i.  e.  officiating  in  public  worship.  Prophesying.  In  the 
scriptural  sense  of  the  word,  a  prophet  is  one  who  speaks  for 
another,  as  Aaron  is  called  the  prophet  or  spokesman  of  Mo 
ses.  "Thou  shalt  speak  unto  him,  and  put  words  into  his 
mouth,  .  .  .  and  he  shall  be  thy  spokesman,"  Ex.  4,  15.  16  ; 
or,  as  he  is  called,  7,  1,  thy  prophet.  The  prophets  of  God, 
therefore,  were  his  spokesmen,  into  whose  mouth  the  Lord 
put  the  words  which  they  were  to  utter  to  the  people.  To 
prophesy,  in  Scripture,  is  accordingly,  to  speak  under  divine 
inspiration ;  not  merely  to  predict  future  events,  but  to  de 
liver,  as  the  organ  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  messages  of  God  to 
men,  whether  in  the  form  of  doctrine,  exhortation,  consola 
tion,  or  prediction.  This  public  function,  the  apostle  says, 
should  not  be  exercised  by  a  man  with  his  head  covered  ;  lit 
erally,  having  something  on  his  head  downward.  Among  the 
Greeks,  the  priests  officiated  bareheaded ;  the  Romans  with 
the  head  veiled ;  the  Jews  (at  least  soon  after  the  apostolic 
age)  also  wore  the  Tallis  or  covering  for  the  head  in  their  pub- 


208  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  4.5. 

lie  services.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  what  is  here  said, 
that  the  Christian  prophets  (or  inspired  men)  had  introduced 
this  custom  into  the  church.  The  thing  to  be  corrected  was, 
women  appearing  in  public  assemblies  unveiled.  The  apostle 
says,  the  veil  is  inconsistent  with  the  position  of  the  man,  but 
is  required  by  that  of  the  women.  Men  are  mentioned  only 
for  the  sake  of  illustrating  the  principle. 

Dishonoureth  his  head.  It  is  doubtful  whether  we  should 
read  his  or  his  own  head,  (avrov  or  O.VTOV).  This  is  a  point  the 
ancient  manuscripts  do  not  decide,  as  they  are  not  furnished 
with  the  diacritical  marks.  It  depends  on  the  connection.  It 
is  also  doubtful  whether  the  apostle  meant  to  say  that  he  dis 
honoured  Christ  who  is  his  head,  or  that  he  dishonoured  him 
self.  The  latter,  perhaps,  is  to  be  preferred,  1.  Because,  in 
the  immediately  preceding  clause  the  word  is  used  literally, 
'  If  he  cover  his  head,  he  dishonours  his  head.'  2.  Because, 
in  v.  5,  the  woman  who  goes  unveiled  is  said  to  dishonour  her 
own  head,  i.  e.  as  what  follows  shows,  herself,  and  not  her 
husband.  -3.  It  is  more  obviously  true  that  a  man  who  acts 
inconsistently  with  his  station  disgraces  himself,  than  that  he 
disgraces  him  who  placed  him  in  that  station.  A  command 
ing  military  officer,  who  appears  at  the  head  of  his  troops  in 
the  dress  of  a  common  soldier,  instead  of  his  official  dress, 
might  more  properly  be  said  to  dishonour  himself  than  his 
sovereign.  For  a  freeman  to  appear  in  the  distinguishing 
dress  of  a  slave,  was  a  disgrace.  So  the  apostle  says,  for  a 
man  to  appear  with  the  conventional  sign  of  subjection  on  his 
head,  disgraced  himself.  If  the  man  be  intended  to  represent 
the  dominion  of  God,  he  must  act  accordingly,  and  not  appear 
in  the  dress  of  a  woman. 

5.  But  every  woman  that  prayeth  or  prophesieth 
with  (her)  head  uncovered  dishonoureth  her  head ;  for 
that  is  even  all  one  as  if  she  were  shaven. 

Praying  and  prophesying  were  the  two  principal  exercises 
in  the  public  worship  of  the  early  Christians.  The  latter 
term,  as  above  stated,  included  all  forms  of  address  dictated 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  Paul's  manner  to  attend  to  one 
thing  at  a  time.  He  is  here  speaking  of  the  propriety  of 
women  speaking  in  public  unveiled,  and  therefore  he  says 
nothing  about  the  propriety  of  their  speaking  in  public  in 
itself.  When  that  subject  comes  up,  he  expresses  his  j  udgmeiit 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  5.  6.  7.  209 

in  the  clearest  terms,  14,  34.     In  here  disapproving  of  the 
one,  says  Calvin,  he  does  not  approve  of  the  other. 

The  veils  worn  by  Grecian  women  were  of  different  kinds. 
One,  and  perhaps  the  most  common,  was  the  peplum,  or  man 
tle,  which  in  public  was  thrown  over  the  head,  and  enveloped 
the  whole  person.  The  other  was  more  in  the  fashion  of  the 
common  eastern  veil  which  covered  the  face,  with  the  excep 
tion  of  the  eyes.  In  one  form  or  other,  the  custom  was  uni 
versal  for  all  respectable  women  to  appear  veiled  in  public. — 
The  apostle  therefore  says,  that  a  woman  who  speaks  in  pub 
lic  with  her  head  uncovered,  dishonoureth  her  head.  Here 
tavTfjs  is  used,  her  own  head ;  not  her  husband,  but  herself. 
This  is  plain,  not  only  from  the  force  of  the  words,  but  from 
the  next  clause,  for  that  is  even  all  one  as  if  she  were  shaven. 
This  is  the  reason  why  she  disgraces  herself.  She  puts  her 
self  in  the  same  class  with  women  whose  hair  has  been  cut  off. 
Cutting  off  the  hair,  which  is  the  principal  natural  ornament 
of  women,  was  either  a  sign  of  grief,  Deut.  21,  12,  or  a  dis 
graceful  punishment.  The  literal  translation  of  this  clause  is : 
she  is  one  and  the  same  thing  with  one  who  is  shaven.  She 
assumes  the  characteristic  mark  of  a  disreputable  woman. 

6.  For  if  the  woman  be  not  covered,  let  her  also  be 
shorn :  but  if  it  be  a  shame  for  a  woman  to  be  shorn 
or  shaven,  let  her  be  covered. 

That  is,  let  her  act  consistently.  If  she  wishes  to  be  re 
garded  as  a  reputable  woman,  let  her  conform  to  the  estab 
lished  usage.  But  if  she  have  no  regard  to  her  reputation, 
let  her  act  as  other  women  of  her  class.  She  must  conform 
either  to  the  reputable  or  disreputable  class  of  her  sex,  for  a 
departure  from  the  one  is  conforming  to  the  other.  These 
imperatives  are  not  to  be  taken  as  commands,  but  rather  as 
expressing  what  consistency  would  require.  Shorn  or  shaven, 
the  latter  is  the  stronger  term ;  it  properly  means  to  cut  with 
a  razor. 

7.  For  a  man  indeed  ought  not  to  cover  (his)  head, 
forasmuch  as  he  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God :  but 
the  woman  is  the  glory  of  the  man. 

The  woman,  and  the  woman  only,  ought  to  be  veiled ;  for 
the  man  ought  not  to  cover  his  head.  This  does  not  mean,  he 


210  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  7.8.9.10. 

is  not  bound  to  do  it,  but  should  not  do  it.  The  negative  be 
longs  not  to  o<£a'A.ei,  but  to  KaTa.Ka\v7rT€(T$ai.  The  reason  is 
that  he  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God.  The  only  sense  in 
which  the  man,  in  distinction  from  the  woman,  is  the  image 
of  God,  is  that  he  represents  the  authority  of  God.  He  is  in 
vested  with  dominion.  When,  in  Genesis  1,  26.  27,  it  is  said 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  the  reference  is  as  much 
to  w^oman  as  to  man ;  for  it  is  immediately  added,  "  male  and 
female  created  he  them."  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  image  of 
God  consists  in  knowledge,  righteousness  and  holiness,  Eve  as 
truly,  and  as  much  as  Adam,  bore  the  likeness  of  her  Maker. 
But  in  the  dominion  with  which  man  was  invested  over  the 
earth,  Adam  was  the  representative  of  God.  He  is  the  glory 
of  God,  because  in  him  the  divine  majesty  is  specially  mani 
fested.  Rut  the  icoman  is  the  glory  of  the  man.  That  is,  the 
woman  is  in  this  respect  subordinate  to  the  man.  She  is  not 
designed  to  reflect  the  glory  of  God  as  a  ruler.  She  is  the 
glory  of  the  man.  She  receives  and  reveals  what  there  is  of 
majesty  in  him.  She  always  assumes  his  station  ;  becomes  a 
queen  if  he  is  a  king,  and  manifests  to  others  the  wealth  and 
honour  which  may  belong  to  her  husband. 

8.  9.  For  the  man  is  not  of  the  woman ;  but  the 
woman  of  the  man.  Neither  was  the  man  created  for 
the  woman ;  but  the  woman  for  the  man. 

The  subordination  of  the  woman  to  the  man  is  here  proved 
from  two  facts  recorded  in  the  history  of  their  creation.  First, 
the  woman  was  formed  out  of  the  man,  and  derived  her  origin 
from  him.  He,  and  not  she,  was  created  first.  Secondly,  she 
was  created  on  his  account,  and  not  he  on  hers.  In  this  way 
does  the  New  Testament  constantly  authenticate,  not  merely 
the  moral  and  religious  truths  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  its 
historical  facts ;  and  makes  those  facts  the  grounds  or  proofs 
of  great  moral  principles.  It  is  impossible,  therefore,  for  any 
Christian  who  believes  in  the  inspiration  of  the  apostles  to 
doubt  the  divine  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
or  to  confine  the  inspiration  of  the  ancient  writers  to  their 
doctrinal  and  preceptive  statements.  The  whole  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God. 

10.  For  this  cause  ought  the  woman  to  have  power 
on  (her)  head  because  of  the  angels. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  10.11.  211 

There  is  scarcely  a  passage  in  the  New  Testament  which 
has  so  much  taxed  the  learning  and  ingenuity  of  commentators 
as  this.  After  all  that  has  been  written,  it  remains  just  as 
obscure  as  ever.  The  meaning  which  it  naturally  suggests  to 
the  most  superficial  reader,  is  regarded  by  the  most  laborious 
critics  as  the  only  true  one.  By  e£ovcria,  power,  the  apostle 
means  the  sign  or  symbol  of  authority;  just  as  Diodorus  Sic., 
1.47,  speaks  of  an  image  as  "having  three  kingdoms  on  its 
head."  The  apostle  had  asserted  and  proved  that  the  woman 
is  subordinate  to  the  man,  and  he  had  assumed  as  granted 
that  the  veil  was  the  conventional  symbol  of  the  man's  author 
ity.  The  inference  is  that  the  woman  ought  to  wear  the  or 
dinary  symbol  of  the  power  of  her  husband.  As  it  was  proper 
in  itself,  and  demanded  by  the  common  sense  of  propriety, 
that  the  woman  should  be  veiled,  it  was  specially  proper  in 
the  worshipping  assemblies,  for  there  they  were  in  the  pres 
ence  not  merely  of  men  but  of  angels.  It  was,  therefore,  not 
only  out  of  deference  to  public  sentiment,  but  from  reverence 
to  those  higher  intelligences  that  the  woman  should  conform 
to  all  the  rules  of  decorum.  This  is  the  common  and  only 
satisfactory  interpretation  of  the  passage.  Of  those  who  dis 
sent  from  this  view,  some  propose  various  conjectural  emenda 
tions  of  the  text ;  others  vainly  endeavour  to  prove  that  the 
word  l£ov(Tia  may  be  made  to  mean  a  veil ;  others  take  the 
word  literally.  And  as  to  the  last  clause,  instead  of  taking 
the  word  angels  in  its  ordinary  sense,  some  say  it  here  means 
the  angels,  or  presiding  officers,  of  the  church ;  others,  that  it 
means  messengers  or  spies  from  the  heathen  who  came  to  ob 
serve  the  mode  in  which  the  Christians  worshipped,  and  would 
report  any  thing  they  observed  to  their  disadvantage.  The 
great  majority  of  commentators  acquiesce  in  the  interpretation 
stated  above,  which  satisfies  all  the  demands  of  the  context. 

11.  Nevertheless,  neither  is  the  man  without  the 
woman,  neither  the  woman  without  the  man,  in  the 
Lord. 

That  is,  although  there  is  this  subordination  of  the  woman 
to  the  man,  they  are  mutually  dependent.  The  one  cannot 
exist  without  the  other.  In  the  Lord.  This  does  not  mean 
that  the  one  is  not  in  the  Lord  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other. 
The  apostle  is  not  here  speaking  of  the  spiritual  equality  of  the 
sexes.  In  Galatians  3,  28  and  elsewhere  he  abundantly  teaches 


212  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  11.12.13. 

that  in  Christ  Jesus  there  is  neither  male  nor  female ;  that 
the  one  is  as  fully  a  partaker  of  all  the  benefits  of  redemption 
as  the  other.  And  it  is  also  true  that  he  teaches  that  this 
equality  of  Jews  and  Greeks,  bond  and  free,  before  God  is  per 
fectly  consistent  with  the  social  inequalities  existing  in  this 
world.  But  these  truths,  however  important,  and  however 
they  distinguish  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  equality  and 
dignity  of  woman  from  all  other  forms  of  religious  doctrine  on 
the  subject,  are  foreign  to  this  connection.  The  apostle's  sin 
gle  object  is  to  show  the  true  nature  and  limitations  of  the 
subordination  of  the  woman  to  the  man.  It  is  a  real  subordi 
nation,  but  it  is  consistent  with  their  mutual  dependence  ;  the 
one  is  not  without  the  other.  And  this  mutual  dependence  is 
et>  Kvptw,  i.  e.  by  divine  appointment — according  to  the  will  of 
the  Lord.  These  words  are  used  here,  as  so  frequently  else 
where,  as  an  adverbial  qualification,  meaning  religiously,  after 
a  Christian  manner,  or  divinely,  i.  e.  by  divine  appointment. 
The  same  idea  is  substantially  expressed  by  those  who  explain 
the  words  in  the  Lord  as  tantamount  to  u  in  Christianity ; " 
in  the  sense  that  it  is  a  Christian  doctrine  that  the  man  and 
the  woman  are  thus  mutually  dependent. 

12.  For  as  the  woman  (is)  of  the  man,  even  so  (is) 
the  man  also  by  the  woman ;  but  all  things  of  God. 

The  one  is  not  without  the  other,  for  as  the  woman  was 
originally  formed  out  of  the  man,  so  the  man  is  born  of  the 
woman.  This  is  a  proof,  not  of  the  admitted  equality  of  the 
sexes  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  of  their  mutual  dependence 
in  the  kingdom  of  nature.  It  therefore  confirms  the  interpre 
tation  given  of  the  preceding  verse.  But  all  things  are  of 
God  j  these  subordinate  relations  of  one  creature  to  another 
are  merged,  as  it  were,  in  the  supreme  causality  of  God.  It 
matters  little  whether  the  man  was  of  the  woman  or  the  wo 
man  of  the  man,  as  both  alike  are  of  God ;  just  as  he  before 
said,  it  matters  little  whether  a  man  were  a  Jew  or  Gentile, 
bond  or  free,  since  all  are  alike  before  God. 

13.  .Judge  in  yourselves  :  is  it  comely  that  a  woman 
pray  unto  God  uncovered  ? 

This  is  an  appeal  to  their  own  sense  of  propriety.  The 
apostle  often  recognizes  the  intuitive  judgments  of  the  mind 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  13.14.15.  213 

as  authoritative.  Rom.  1,  32.  3,  8.  The  constitution  of  our 
nature  being  derived  from  God,  the  laws  which  he  has  im 
pressed  upon  it,  are  as  much  a  revelation  from  him  as  any 
other  possible  communication  of  his  will.  And  to  deny  this, 
is  to  deny  the  possibility  of  all  knowledge.  Is  it  comely  (vpi- 
TTOV  «m),  is  it  becoming  or  decorous  f 

14.  15,  Doth  not  even  nature  itself  teach  you,  that, 
if  a  man  have  long  hair,  it  is  a  shame  unto  him  ?  But 
if  a  woman  have  long  hair,  it  is  a  glory  to  her  :  for 
(her)  hair  is  given  her  for  a  covering. 


Dotli  not  nature  itself.  The  word  (<£wm),  nature,  some 
times  means  essence  or  substance,  sometimes  the  laws  of  'nature, 
or  of  our  natural  constitution  ;  sometimes,  the  instinctive  feel 
ings  or  judgments  which  are  the  effects  of  those  laws.  The 
form  which  these  feelings  assume  is  necessarily  determined  in 
a  great  measure  by  education  and  habit.  The  instinctive 
sense  of  propriety  in  an  eastern  maiden  prompts  her,  when 
surprised  by  strangers,  to  cover  her  face.  In  an  European  it 
would  not  produce  that  effect.  In  writing,  therefore,  to  east 
ern  females,  it  would  be  correct  to  ask  whether  their  native 
sense  of  propriety  did  not  prompt  them  to  cover  their  heads 
in  public.  The  response  would  infallibly  be  in  the  affirmative. 
It  is  in  this  sense  the  word  nature  is  commonly  taken  here. 
It  may,  however,  mean  the  laws  or  course  of  nature.  Nature 
gives  the  man  short  hair  and  the  woman  long  hair  ;  and  there 
fore  nature  itself  teaches  that  long  hair  is  a  disgrace  to  ^the 
one  and  an  ornament  to  the  other  ;  for  it  is  disgraceful  in  a 
man  to  be  like  a  woman,  and  in  a  woman  to  be  like  a  man. 
Wearing  long  hair  was  contrary  to  the  custom  both  of  the 
Hebrews  and  Greeks.  The  Nazarites,  as  a  distinction,  allowed 
their  hair  to  grow.  Num.  6,  8  ;  see  also  Ezek.  44,  20.  It 
was  considered  so  much  a  mark  of  effeminacy  for  men  to  wear 
long  hair,  that  it  was  not  only  ridiculed  by  Juvenal,  but  in 
after  times  seriously  censured  by  church  councils.  To  a  wo 
man,  however,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  long  hair  has  been 
considered  an  ornament.  It  is  given  to  her,  Paul  says,  as  a 
covering,  or  as  a  natural  veil  ;  and  it  is  a  glory  to  her  because 
it  is  a  veil.  The  veil  itself,  therefore,  must  be  becoming  and 
decorous  in  a  woman. 


214  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  16. 

16.  But  if  any  man  seem  to  be  contentious,  wo 
have  no  such  custom,  neither  the  churches  of  God. 

The  arguments  against  the  custom  of  women  appearing  in 
public  unveiled  having  been  presented,  the  apostle  says,  if  any 
man,  notwithstanding  these  arguments,  is  disposed  to  dispute 
the  matter,  or  appears  to  be  contentious,  we  have  only  further 
to  say,  that  ice  (the  apostles)  have  no  such  custom,  neither 
have  the  churches  of  God.  To  be  contentious,  i.  e.  disposed  to 
dispute  for  the  sake  of  disputation.  "With  such  persons  all  ar 
gument  is  useless.  Authority  is  the  only  end  of  controversy 
with  such  disturbers  of  the  peace.  The  authority  here  ad 
duced  is  that  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  churches.  The  former 
was  decisive,  because  the  apostles  were  invested  with  authori 
ty  not  only  to  teach  the  gospel,  but  also  to  organize  the 
church,  and  to  decide  every  thing  relating  to  Christian  ordi 
nances  and  worship.  The  authority  of  the  churches,  although 
not  coercive,  was  yet  great.  No  man  is  justified,  except  on 
clearly  scriptural  grounds,  and  from  the  necessity  of  obeying 
God  rather  than  man,  to  depart  from  the  established  usages 
of  the  church  in  matters  of  public  concern. 

Calvin,  and  many  of  the  best  modern  commentators,  give 
a  different  view  of  this  passage.  They  understand  the 
apostle  to  say,  that  if  any  one  seems  to  be  disputatious,  nei 
ther  we  nor  the  churches  are  accustomed  to  dispute.  It  is  not 
our  wont  to  waste  words  with  those  who  wish  merely  to  make 
contention.  The  only  reason  assigned  for  this  interpretation, 
is  Paul's  saying  we  have  no  such  custom ;  which  they  say  can 
not  mean  the  custom  of  women  going  unveiled.  But  why 
not  ?  The  apostles  and  the  churches  constituted  a  whole — 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  neither  the  churches  nor  their 
infallible  guides,  sanctioned  the  usage  in  question.  Besides, 
no  other  custom  is  mentioned  in  the  context  than  the  one 
which  he  has  been  discussing.  "  If  any  one  appear  conten 
tious,"  is  not  a  custom  and  suggests  nothing  to  which  the 
words  such  a  custom  can  naturally  refer. 

Celebration  of  the  Lor&s  Supper,  vs.  17-34.  j 

This  section  relates  to  the  disorders  connected  with  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper.  These  disorders  were  of  a 
kind  which,  according  to  our  method  of  celebrating  that 
sacrament,  seems  almost  unaccountable.  It  was,  however, 
the  early  custom  to  connect  the  Lord's  supper  in  the  strict 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11.  215 

sense  of  the  words  with  an  ordinary  meal.  As  this  sacrament 
was  instituted  by  our  Lord  at  the  close  of  the  Paschal  supper, 
so  it  appears  to  have  been  customary  at  the  beginning  for  the 
Christians  to  assemble  for  a  common  meal  and  to  connect  with 
it  the  commemoration  of  the  Redeemer's  death.  Intimations 
of  this  usage  may  be  found  in  such  passages  as  Acts  2,  42. 
"  They  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostle's  doctrine  and  fel 
lowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayer."  In  v.  46  it 
is  said,  this  breaking  of  bread  was  from  house  to  house.  In 
Acts  20,  7,  it  is  said,  "  The  disciples  came  together  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  to  break  bread,"  which,  from  the  narrative 
which  follows,  appears  to  have  been  an  ordinary  meal.  What 
ever  may  be  thought  of  these  passages,  it  is  clear  from  the 
paragraph  before  us  that  at  Corinth  at  least,  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  supper  was  connected  with  a  regular  meal.  This 
may  have  arisen,  not  so  -much  from  the  original  institution  of 
the  Eucharist  in  connection  with  the  Paschal  supper,  as  from 
the  sacred  festivals  both  of  the  Jews  and  Greeks.  Both  class 
es  had  been  accustomed  to  unite  with  their  sacrifices  a  feast 
of  a  more  or  less  public  character.  It  is  also  evident  that, 
agreeably  to  a  familiar  Grecian  custom,  the  persons  assembled 
brought  their  own  provisions,  which  being  placed  on  the  table 
formed  a  common  stock.  The  rich  brought  plentifully,  the 
poor  brought  little  or  nothing.  It  was,  however,  essential  to 
the  very  idea  of  a  Christian  feast,  that  it  should  be  a  commu 
nion  ;  that  all  the  guests  at  the  table  of  their  common  Lord 
should  be  on  the  terms  of  equality.  Instead  of  this  fraternal 
union,  there  were  divisions  among  the  Corinthians  even  at  the 
Lord's  table.  The  rich  eating  by  themselves  the  provisions 
which  they  had  brought,  and  leaving  their  poorer  brethren 
mortified  and  hungry.  It  is  to  the  correction  of  these  disor 
ders  that  the  concluding  portion  of  this  chapter  is  devoted. 

It  was  no  matter  of  praise  that  the  assemblies  of  the  Co 
rinthians  made  them  worse  rather  than  better,  v.  17.  The 
prominent  evil  was,  that  there  were  schisms  even  in  their  most 
sacred  meetings ;  an  evil  necessary  in  the  state  in  which  they 
were,  and  which  God  permitted  in  order  that  the  good  might 
be  made  manifest,  vs.  18.  19.  The  evil  to  which  he  referred 
was  not  merely  that  they  had  degraded  the  Lord's  supper  into 
an  ordinary  meal,  but  that  in  that  meal  they  were  divided 
into  parties,  some  eating  and  drinking  to  excess,  and  others 
left  without  any  thing,  vs.  20.  21.  This  was  not  only  making 
the  Lord's  supper  a  meal  for  satisfying  hunger — contrary  to 


216  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  17. 

its  original  design,  but  a  cruel  perversion  of  a  feast  of  love 
into  a  means  of  humiliating  and  wounding  their  poorer  breth 
ren,  v.  22.  In  order  to  show  how  inconsistent  their  conduct 
was  with  the  nature  of  the  service  in  which  they  professed  to 
engage,  the  apostle  recounts  the  original  institution  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  vs.  23-25.  From  this  account  it  follows,  first, 
that  the  Lord's  supper  was  designed  not  as  an  ordinary  meal, 
but  as  a  commemoration  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  secondly, 
that  to  participate  in  this  ordinance  in  an  unworthy  manner, 
was  an  offence  against  his  body  and  blood,  the  symbols  of 
which  were  so  irreverently  treated ;  thirdly,  that  no  one  ought 
to  approach  the  Lord's  table  without  self-examination,  in  order 
that  with  due  preparation  and  with  a  proper  understanding  of 
the  ordinance,  he  may  receive  the  bread  and  wine  as  the  sym 
bols  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  vs.  26-29.  In  this  way  they 
would  escape  the  judgments  which  the  Lord  had  brought 
upon  them  on  account  of  their  profanation  of  his  table,  vs.  30- 
32.  In  conclusion,  he  exhorts  them  to  use  their  houses  for 
their  ordinary  meals,  and  to  make  the  Lord's  supper  a  real 
communion,  vs.  33.  34. 

17.  Now  in  this  that  1  declare  (unto  you)  I  praise 
(you)  not,  that  ye  come  together  not  for  the  better,  but 
for  the  worse. 

In  v.  2  he  said,  I  praise  you.  His  praise  was  consistent 
with  grave  disapprobation  of  many  things  in  their  condition 
as  a  church.  He  did  not  praise  them  for  the  manner  in  which 
they  conducted  their  public  worship.  Their  assemblies  were 
disgraced  not  only  by  women  appearing  unveiled,  contrary  to 
the  established  rules  of  decorum,  but  also  by  the  unfraternal 
and  irreverent  manner  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  supper — and 
also  by  the  disorderly  manner  in  which  they  used  their  spir 
itual  gifts.  These  evils  he  takes  up  in  their  order.  Having 
dispatched  the  first,  he  comes  now  to  the  second. 

Now  in  this  that  I  declare  unto  you*  The  Greek  is  not 
in  this,  but  this.  The  passage  may  be  rendered,  Declaring 
this  I  do  not  applaud.  To  this,  however,  it  is  objected  that 

*  The  common  Text  here  reads  Trapayye\\<>)v  OVK  (iraivw.  Lachmann 
and  Tischendorf  read  Trapuyje\\u  ov<c  tiraivuv  on  the  authority  of  the  Msa. 
A.  C.  F.  G.  and  others  of  later  date,  and  the  Syriac,  Vulgate,  and  Ethiopia 
versions.  The  common  reading  is  preferred  by  the  majority  of  editors. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  17.18.  217 

in  the  New  Testament  never  means  to  declare, 
but  always  to  command.  Hence,  the  better  translation  is, 
Commanding  or  enjoining  this  I  do  not  applaud.  It  is  doubt 
ful  whether  this  refers  to  what  precedes  or  to  what  follows. 
If  the  former,  then  the  sense  is,  '  While  I  command  what 
precedes  respecting  women  appearing  veiled,  I  do  not  praise 
you,  that,'  &c.  If  the  latter,  the  meaning  is,  '  Commanding 
what  follows,  I  do  not  praise,'  &c.  That  ye  come  together 
not  for  the  better,  but  for  the  worse.  That  is,  your  public  as 
semblies  are  so  conducted  that  evil  rather  than  good  results. 
The  censure  is  general,  embracing  all  the  grounds  of  complaint 
which  are  specified  in  this  and  the  following  chapters. 

18.  For  first  of  all,  when  ye  come  together  in  the 
church,  I  hear  that  there  be  divisions  among  you;  and 
I  partly  believe  it. 

For  first  of  all,  or,  For  in  the  first  place.  Paul  often  be 
gins  an  enumeration  which  he  does  not  follow  out.  There  is 
nothing  to  answer  to  these  words  in  what  follows.  According 
to  one  view  the  first  censure  is  directed  against  the  divisions, 
and  the  second  against  their  mode  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  sup 
per.  But  the  only  divisions  which  he  here  refers  to  are  those 
connected  with  their  public  worship,  and  especially  with  the 
celebration  of  the  sacrament.  Besides,  the  subject  of  divisions 
was  treated  in  the  beginning  of  the  epistle.  He  is  here  speak 
ing  of  their  assemblies.  The  second  ground  of  censure  is  to 
be  found  in  the  following  chapter.  'When  ye  come  together  in 
the  church.  The  word  (eK/cA^o-ax)  church  never  means  in  the 
New  Testament,  a  building.  The  meaning  is,  when  ye  come 
together  in  convocation,  or  assemble  as  a  church.  I  hear  that 
there  be  divisions  among  you.  Literally,  schisms.  For  the 
meaning  of  that  word,  see  1,  10.  The  nature  of  these  schisms 
is  described  in  what  follows.  They  were  cliques,  not  sects, 
but  parties,  separated  from  each  other  by  alienation  of  feeling. 
It  is  evident  that  the  rich  formed  one  of  these  parties,  as  dis 
tinguished  from  the  poor.  And  probably  there  were  many 
other  grounds  of  division.  The  Jewish  converts  separated 
from  the  Gentiles ;  those  having  one  gift  exalted  themselves 
over  those  having  another.  It  is  not  outward  separation,  but 
inward  alienation,  which  is  here  complained  of.  And  I  partly 
believe  it.  Paul  intimates  that  he  was  loath  to  believe  all  he 

10 


218  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  18.19. 

had  heard  to  their  disadvantage  in  this  matter  ;  but  lie  was 
forced  to  believe  enough  to  excite  his  serious  disapprobation. 

19.  For  there  must  be  also  heresies  among  you, 
that  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest 
among  you. 

This  is  the  reason  why  he  believed  what  he  had  heard. 
He  knew  that  such  things  must  happen,  and  that  God  had  a 
wise  purpose  in  permitting  them;  comp.  Matt.  18,  7,  "It 
must  needs  be  that  offences  come."  Evil  as  well  as  good  is 
included  in  the  divine  purpose.  It  is  purposed  not  as  evil,  but 
for  the  sake  of  the  good  which  infinite  wisdom  evolves  from 
it.  Also  heresies.  This  does  not  mean  heresies  in  addition  to 
schisms,  as  something  different  from  them.  But  heresies  as 
well  as  other  evils.  4 1  hear  there  are  divisions  (o-xtV/xara) 
among  you,  and  I  believe  it,  for  such  divisions  (aipeVets)  must 
occur.'  What  in  the  one  verse  are  called  schisms,  in  the  next 
are  called  heresies ;  both  words  having  the  general  sense  of 
divisions.  The  nature  of  these  divisions  is  to  be  determined 
by  the  context.  The  word  (cupeo-is)  heresy  means  literally  an 
act  of  choice,  then  a  chosen  way  of  life,  a  sect  or  party ;  not 
always  in  a  bad  sense,  but  in  the  sense  of  schools ;  as,  "  the 
heresies  of  philosophers"  means  "the  schools  or  different 
classes  of  philosophers."  So  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  re 
peatedly  used  of  "  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,"  or  "  of  the  Sad- 
ducees,"  Acts  15,  5.  5,  17.  Here  and  in  Gal.  5,  20  it  means 
dissension.  The  ecclesiastical  sense  of  the  word  heresy,  is, 
the  choice  of  an  opinion  different  from  that  of  the  church,  or 
a  doctrine  contrary  to  Scripture.  There  is  nothing  to  favour 
the  assumption  that  such  is  its  meaning  here. 

That  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest. 
This  is  the  end  which  God  has  in  view  in  permitting  the  oc 
currence  of  such  divisions.  It  is,  that  they  which  are  approved 
(01  So/a/xoi),  the  tried,  those  who  have  stood  the  test,  and  are 
worthy  of  approbation.  The  opposite  class  are  called  (dSoVi- 
juoi)  reprobate.  By  the  prevalence  of  disorders  and  other  evils 
in  the  church,  God  puts  his  people  to  the  test.  They  are  tried 
as  gold  in  the  furnace,  and  their  genuineness  is  made  to  ap 
pear.  It  is  a  great  consolation  to  know  that  dissensions, 
whether  in  the  church  or  in  the  state,  are  not  fortuitous,  but 
are  ordered  by  the  providence  of  God,  and  are  designed,  as 
Btorms,  for  the  purpose  of  purification. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  20.21.  219 

20.  When  ye  come  together  therefore  into  one 
place,  (this)  is  not  to  eat  the  Lord's  supper. 

Ye  coming  together  then  into  one  place.  Verse  19  is  an 
interruption.  The  connection  with  v.  18  is  resumed  by  the 
particle  (ow)  then.  When  you  assemble  it  is  not  to  eat  the 
Lord>s  supper.  This  is  not  the  real,  though  it  is  your  pro 
fessed  purpose.  c  You  come  together  for  a  common,  and  that 
too,  a  disorderly,  unbrotherly  meal.'  The  words,  however, 
admit  of  two  other  interpretations.  We  may  supply,  as  our 
translators  have  done,  the  word  this.  '  This  is  not  to  eat  the 
Lord's  supper ;  your  meal  does  not  deserve  that  sacred  char 
acter.'  Or,  'Ye  cannot  eat  the  Lord's  supper.'  The  sub 
stantive  verb  (eo-rt)  followed  by  an  infinitive  often  means  can  ; 
OVK  tvTiv  eiTmi/,  one  cannot  say  /  OVK  ecn-i  ^ayelv,  one  cannot  eat. 
4  Coming  together  as  you  do  it  is  impossible  to  celebrate  the 
Lord's  supper.'  This  gives  a  very  pertinent  sense.  The 
Lord's  supper  is  the  supper  instituted  by  the  Lord,  one  to 
which  he  invites  the  guests,  and  which  is  celebrated  in  com 
memoration  of  his  death.  That  was  a  very  different  service 
from  the  Agapae,  or  love  feasts,  as  they  were  afterwards 
called,  and  which,  on  account  of  the  disorders  attending  them, 
were  subsequently  prohibited  by  the  Council  of  Carthage. 
These  Agapae  were  feasts  to  which  each  one  brought  his  con 
tributions,  during  and  after  which  (the  bread  during,  and 
the  cup  after]  the  consecrated  elements  were  distributed. 
See  Augustus  Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,  I.  p.  299; 
and  Pool's  Synopsis  on  Matt.  26,  26.  Coleman's  Ancient 
Christianity,  p.  443. 

21.  For  in  eating  every  one  taketh  before  (other) 
his  own  supper :   and  one  is  hungry,  and  another  is 
drunken. 

For,  i.  e.  the  reason  why  the  Corinthian  suppers  were  not 
the  Lord's  supper,  is  (so  far  as  here  stated)  that  there  was  no 
communion,  or  eating  together.  They  were  not  all  partakers 
of  one  bread,  10,  17.  They  did  not  wait  for  each  other.  Comp. 
v.  33.  On  the  contrary,  each  one  took  beforehand,  i.  e.  before 
others  could  join  with  him,  his  own  supper,  i.  e.  that  which  he 
had  brought.  The  consequence  was,  that  one  was  hungry  • 
the  poor  had  nothing ;  while  another  was  drunk.  Such  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  Whether  the  apostle  intended  to  say 


220  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  21.22. 

that  any  of  the  Corinthians  actually  became  intoxicated  at  the 
table  which  they  called  the  table  of  the  Lord,  or  whether  he 
meant  simply  to  say,  that  while  one  had  more,  another  had 
less,  than  enough,  it  is  not  easy  to  decide.  As  they  seem  to 
have  accommodated  their  service  to  the  sacrificial  feasts  to 
which  they  had,  while  yet  heathens,  been  accustomed,  it  is 
the  less  improbable  that  in  some  cases  they  were  guilty  of 
actual  excess.  "  It  is  wonderful,  and  well  nigh  portentous," 
says  Calvin,  "  that  Satan  could  have  accomplished  so  much  in 
so  short  a  time.  We  may  learn  from  this  example,  what  is 
the  worth  of  mere  antiquity ;  that  is,  what  authority  is  due  to 
custom  unsustained  by  the  word  of  God.  .  .  .  Yet  this  is  the 
firmest  foundation  of  Popery :  it  is  ancient ;  it  was  done  of 
old,  therefore  it  has  divine  authority ! "  If,  within  twenty 
years  of  its  institution,  the  Corinthians  turned  the  Lord's  sup 
per  into  a  disorderly  feast,  although  the  apostles  were  then 
alive,  we  need  not  wonder  at  the  speedy  corruption  of  the 
church  after  their  death. 

22.  What !  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink 
in  ?  or  despise  ye  the  church  of  God,  and  shame  them 
which  have  not  ?  What  shall  I  say  to  you  ?  shall  I 
praise  you  in  this  ?  I  praise  (you)  not. 

The  two  grounds  on  which  the  apostle  condemned  this 
conduct  of  the  Corinthians  were,  first,  that  it  was  a  perversion 
of  the  Lord's  supper  ;  and  secondly,  that  it  was  disrespectful 
and  mortifying  to  their  poorer  brethren.  It  was  a  perversion 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  because  it  made  it  an  ordinary  meal  de 
signed  to  satisfy  hunger.  For  that  purpose  they  had  their 
own  houses.  The  church  comes  together  to  worship  God  and 
to  celebrate  his  ordinances,  not  for  the  purpose  of  eating  and 
drinking.  It  is  important  that  the  church,  as  the  church, 
should  confine  itself  to  its  own  appropriate  work,  and  not  as 
such  undertake  to  do  what  its  members,  as  citizens  or  mem 
bers  of  families,  may  appropriately  do.  The  church  does  not 
come  together  to  do  what  can  better  be  done  at  home.  Or 
despise  ye  the  church  o/  God  f  This  was  the  second  ground 
of  condemnation.  Their  conduct  evinced  contempt  of  their 
brethren.  They  treated  them  as  unfit  to  eat  with  them.  Yet 
the  poor  were  constituent  members  of  the  church  of  God. 
They  were  his  people ;  those  whom  he  had  chosen,  whom  he 
had  made  kings  and  priests  unto  himself.  These  persons,  thus 


I.  CORINTHIANS   11,  22.23.  221 

highly  honoured  of  God,  the  richer  Corinthians  treated  with 
contempt ;  and  that  too  at  the  Lord's  table,  where  all  exter 
nal  distinctions  are  done  away,  and  the  master  is  not  a  hair's 
breadth  above  his  slave.  And  shame  those  who  have  not. 
To  shame,  i.  e.  to  mortify  and  humble,  by  rendering  conscious 
of  inferiority.  Those  who  have  not  may  mean,  either  those 
who  have  not  houses  to  eat  or  drink  in,  or  simply  the  poor. 
Those  who  have,  are  the  rich ;  those  who  have  not,  are  the 
poor.  The  latter  interpretation  is  not  only  consistent  with 
the  Greek  idiom,  but  gives  a  better  sense.  Even  the  poorer 
members  of  the  church  did  not,  and  ought  not,  come  to  the 
Lord's  table  for  the  sake  of  food.  Much  as  Paul  was  disposed 
to  praise  the  Corinthians,  in  this  matter  he  could  not  praise 
them. 

23.  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also 
I  delivered  unto  you,  That  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  (same) 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread  : 

4 1  cannot  praise  you,  for  your  manner  of  celebrating  the 
Lord's  supper  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  its  original  institu 
tion.'  They  were  the  more  inexcusable  in  departing  from  the 
original  mode  of  celebrating  this  ordinance,  first,  because  the 
account  of  its  original  institution  had  been  received  by  Paul 
from  the  Lord  himself;  and  secondly,  because  he  had  delivered 
it  to  them.  Their  sin  was  therefore  one  of  irreverent  disobe 
dience,  without  the  excuse  of  ignorance.  For  I  have  received 
of  the  Lord.  Paul  asserts  that  he  received  from  the  Lord  the 
account  here  given.  The  whole  context  shows  that  he  intends 
to  claim  for  this  narrative  the  direct  authority  of  the  Lord 
himself.  As  with  regard  to  his  doctrines  generally,  so  with 
regard  to  the  institution  and  design  of  this  ordinance,  he  dis 
claims  all  indebtedness  to  tradition  or  to  the  instructions  of 
men,  and  asserts  the  fact  of  a  direct  revelation  to  himself.  Of 
the  gospel  he  says,  "  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was 
I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Gal.  1, 12. 
To  this  interpretation,  however,  it  is  objected,  1.  That  he  uses 
the  preposition  obi-d,  which  properly  expresses  a  mediate  deriva 
tion  (i.  e.  through  the  instrumentality  of  others),  and  not  Trapa, 
which  would  imply  a  direct  communication.  This  objection 
supposes  a  refinement  in  the  use  of  the  Greek  particles,  which 
is  not  consistent  with  the  character  of  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  Apostle  John  says :  "  This  is  the  message 


222  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  23. 

which  we  have  heard  of  him  (air  d/roD),"  1  John  1,  5,  which 
certainly  does  not  refer  to  an  indirect  communication  re 
ceived  through  others.  In  this  place  d-n-o  rov  Kvpi'ov,  from  the 
Lord,  is  evidently  opposed  to  O.TT  dv^pwTrcoi/,  from,  men.  He 
received  his  knowledge  from  the  Lord,  and  not  from  men. 
Comp.  Gal.  1, 12.  So  in  Gal.  1,  1,  he  says  he  was  an  apostle 
not  by  men  (OVK  oaf  dV^pwTran/),  but  by  Jesus  Christ  (Sia  lyo-ov 
Xpio-rou).  Must  it  be  inferred  from  this  latter  expression  that 
Christ  was  only  the  medium  of  Paul's  call  to  the  apostleship, 
because  Sid  expresses  the  instrumental  cause  ?  This  would  be 
as  reasonable  as  to  infer  from  the  use  of  GOTO  in  the  text,  that 
the  knowledge  of  Paul  was  derived  indirectly  from  the  Lord. 
The  apostle  however  says  in  Gal.  1,  1,  that  he  received  his 
apostleship,  not  only  through  Jesus  Christ,  but  also  through 
God  the  Father  ;  must  this  also  mean  through  the  instrumen 
tality  of  God  ?  is  God  the  Father  a  mere  instrument  ?  No 
writer  uses  language  with  such  strict  grammatical  accu 
racy  as  this  objection  supposes ;  much  less  did  Jews  writing 
Greek.  It  is  of  course  important  to  adhere  as  far  as  possible 
to  the  exact  meaning  of  the  words ;  but  to  sacrifice  the  sense 
and  obvious  intent  of  the  writer  to  such  niceties  is  unreasona 
ble.  The  use  of  0.71-0,  in  this  case,  probably  arose  from  the  de 
sire  to  avoid  the  triple  repetition  of  Trapa ;  7rapeXa/?ov,  Trapa, 
Trape'SwKa.  2.  It  is  objected  that,  as  the  Lord's  supper  had 
been  celebrated  without  interruption  from  the  time  of  its  in 
stitution,  the  facts  concerning  it  must  have  been  universally 
known,  and  therefore  needed  no  direct  revelation.  The  same 
objection  might  be  made  to  a  special  revelation  of  the  gospel 
to  Paul.  Why  might  he  not  have  been  allowed  to  learn  it 
from  the  other  apostles  ?  Besides,  Paul,  as  he  shows  in  the 
first  and  second  chapters  of  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  had 
no  communication  with  the  other  apostles  for  three  years  after 
his  conversion.  3.  It  is  objected  that  ideas  and  truths  may 
be  communicated  by  visions  and  inward  influences,  but  not 
historical  facts.  Then  a  large  part  of  the  prophecies  of  the 
Old  Testament  must  be  fabulous.  The  evidence  is  so  strong 
from  the  context,  that  Paul  claims  independent  authority  for 
what  he  here  says,  that  many  who  bow  to  the  force  of  the 
Greek  preposition,  say  that  the  account  received  by  Paul  from 
Christ  through  others,  was  authenticated  to  him  by  an  inward 
revelation.  But  this  is  not  what  he  says.  He  says  he  re 
ceived  it  from  Christ,  which,  in  the  connection,  can  only  mean 
that  he  received  it  directly  from  Christ;  for  his  object  is  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  23.  223 

give  authority  to  his  account  of  the  ordinance.  It  was  not 
only  of  importance  for  the  Corinthians,  but  for  the  whole 
church,  to  be  assured  that  this  account  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
was  communicated  immediately  by  Christ  to  the  apostle.  It 
shows  the  importance  which  our  Lord  attributes  to  this  ordi 
nance. 

The  account  which  Paul  received  was,  TJiat  the  same  night 
in  which  he  was  betrayed,  i.  e.  while  he  was  being  betrayed — 
while  the  traitorous  scheme  was  in  progress.  Under  these 
affecting  circumstances  the  ordinance  was  instituted.  This 
fact,  which  Christ  saw  fit  to  reveal  to  Paul,  must  be  of  perma 
nent  interest  to  his  people.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference, 
that  this  sacred  rite  was  instituted  on  the  last  night  of  our 
Redeemer's  life,  and  when  he  knew  what  the  morrow  was  to 
bring  forth.  This  fact  gives  a  peculiar  solemnity  and  interest 
to  the  institution.  Romanists,  in  answer  to  the  objections 
made  by  Protestants  to  the  mass,  that  it  is  a  departure  from 
the  original  mode  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  supper,  say  that 
if  the  example  of  Christ  be  obligatory,  we  should  celebrate 
the  ordinance  at  night,  after  a  meal,  and  at  a  table  covered 
with  provisions,  &c.  Protestants,  however,  do  not  hold  that 
the  church  in  all  ages  is  bound  to  do  whatever  Christ  and  the 
apostles  did,  but  only  what  they  designed  should  be  after 
wards  done.  It  is  not  apostolic  example  which  is  obligatory, 
but  apostolic  precept,  whether  expressed  in  words  or  in  exam 
ples  declared  or  evinced  to  be  preceptive.  The  example  of 
Christ  in  celebrating  the  Lord's  supper  is  binding  as  to  every 
thing  which  enters  into  the  nature  and  significancy  of  the  in 
stitution  ;  for  those  are  the  very  things  which  we  are  com 
manded  to  do.  They  constitute  the  ordinance. 

Took  bread.  Matt.  26,  26,  it  is  said,  "  as  they  were  eat 
ing,"  i.  e.  during  the  repast,  "  Jesus  took  bread,"  that  is,  he 
took  of  the  bread  lying  on  the  table ;  and  as  it  was  at  the 
time  of  the  Passover,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  bread  used 
was  unleavened.  It  was  the  thin  Passover  bread  of  the  Jews, 
But  as  no  part  of  the  significancy  of  the  rite  depends  on  the 
kind  of  bread  used,  as  there  is  no  precept  on  the  subject,  and 
as  the  apostles  subsequently  in  the  celebration  of  the  ordinance 
used  ordinary  bread,  it  is  evidently  a  matter  of  indifference 
what  kind  of  bread  is  used.  It  was  however  for  a  long  time 
a  subject  of  bitter  controversy.  At  first  the  Latins  and  Greeks 
used  leavened  bread;  when  the  Latins  introduced  the  un 
leavened  wafer  from  superstitious  fear  of  any  of  the  fragments 


224  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  23.24. 

being  dropped,  the  Greeks  retained  the  use  of  fermented 
bread,  and  accused  the  Latins  of  Judaizing.  Romanists  and 
Lutherans  use  unleavened  wafers ;  Protestants  generally  ordi 
nary  bread. 

24.  And  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  (it), 
and  said,  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken 
for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 

Having  given  thanks.  In  Matt.  26,  26,  and  Mark  14,  22, 
it  is,  "  Having  blessed  iW>  In  Luke  22,  19,  it  is  as  here.  The 
two  expressions  mean  the  same  thing.  Both  express  the  act 
of  consecration,  by  a  grateful  acknowledgment  of  God's  mercy 
and  invocation  of  his  blessing.  See  the  remarks  on  10, 16. 
He  brake  it.  This  circumstance  is  included  in  all  the  accounts ; 
in  those  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  as  well  as  in  Paul's. 
This  is  one  of  the  significant  parts  of  the  service,  and  ought 
not  to  be  omitted  as  is  done  by  Romanists,  by  the  Greek 
church  and  by  Lutherans.  And  said.  The  words  uttered 
by  our  blessed  Lord  at  this  moment  are  differently  reported 
by  the  different  evangelists.  In  Matt.  26,  26,  it  is,  "  Take, 
eat."  In  Mark  14,  22,  the  latter  word  (according  to  the  best 
authorities)  is  omitted.  In  Luke  22, 19,  both  are  omitted. 
Here,  although  both  are  found  in  the  common  text,  yet,  as 
they  are  wanting  in  the  oldest  MSS.,  they  should  probably  be 
omitted  ;  so  that  Paul's  account  agrees  as  to  this  point  with 
that  of  Luke.  The  proper  inference  from  this  diversity  is, 
that  the  words  were  uttered  by  our  Lord ;  but  as  the  ideas 
which  they  express  were  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  gesture 
of  reaching  the  bread  to  his  disciples,  they  were  omitted  by 
some  of  the  narrators  as  unnecessary.  The  idea,  whether  ex 
pressed  by  words  or  gesture,  is  however  of  importance.  The 
bread  was  to  be  taken  and  eaten. — There  must  be  a  distribu 
tion  of  the  elements  to  those  participating  in  the  service. 
Otherwise  it  is  not  a  communion.  This  distribution  is  omitted 
by  Romanists  in  the  ordinary  celebration  of  the  Mass.  The 
priest  alone  eats  the  consecrated  wafer.  The  next  words, 
this  is  my  body,  are  found  in  all  the  accounts.  Probably  the 
history  of  the  world  does  not  furnish  a  parallel  to  the  contro 
versies  occasioned  by  these  simple  words.  The  ordinary  and 
natural  interpretation  of  them  is,  that  the  pronoun  this  refers 
to  the  bread.  'This  bread  which  I  hold  in  iny  hand,  and 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  24.  225 

which  I  give  to  you,  is  my  body.'  That  is,  is  the  symbol  of 
my  body ;  precisely  as  we  say  of  a  statue,  it  is  the  person 
which  it  represents ;  or  as  the  "Scriptures  say  that  the  sign  is 
the  thing  of  which  it  is  the  symbol,  Ez.  5,  4.  5.  Gal.  4,  24 ;  or  as 
our  Saviour  says,  I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches.  I  am 
the  door ;  or  as  in  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  said,  "  that 
rock  was  Christ ; "  or  as  in  John  1,32,  the  dove  is  said  to  be 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  or  as  baptism  is  said  to  be  regeneration. 
This  is  a  usage  so  familiar  to  all  languages  that  no  one  dis 
putes  that  the  words  in  question  will  bear  this  interpretation. 
That  they  must  have  this  meaning,  would  seem  to  be  plain, 
1.  From  the  impossibility  of  the  bread  in  Christ's  hand  being 
his  literal  body  then  seated  at  the  table ;  and  the  wine  the 
blood  then  flowing  in  his  veins.  2.  From  the  still  more  obvi 
ous  impossibility  of  taking  the  words  "  this  cup  is  the  New 
Testament "  in  a  literal  sense.  In  Matt.  26,  28  it  is  said,  "  this 
(cup)  is  my  blood."  But  Romanists  do  not  hold  to  a  transub- 
stantiation  of  the  cup,  but  only  of  the  wine.  But  if  the  words 
are  to  be  taken  literally,  they  necessitated  the  belief  of  the  one 
as  well  as  of  the  other.  3.  From  the  utter  subversion  of  all 
the  rules  of  evidence  and  laws  of  belief  necessarily  involved  in 
the  assumption  that  the  bread  in  the  Lord's  supper  is  literally 
the  crucified  body  of  Christ.  4.  From  the  infidelity  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  superstitious  idolatry  on  the  other,  which  are 
the  unavoidable  consequences  of  calling  upon  men  to  believe 
so  glaring  a  contradiction.  It  is  only  by  denying  all  distinc 
tion  between  matter  and  spirit,  and  confounding  all  ouHdeas 
of  substance  and  qualities,  that  we  can  believe  that  wine  is 
blood,  or  bread  flesh. 

The  Romish  interpretation  of  these  words  is,  that  the 
bread  is  the  body  of  Christ,  because  its  whole  substance  is 
changed  into  the  substance  of  his  body.  The  Lutherans  say, 
It  is  his  body,  because  his  body  is  locally  present  in  and  with 
the  bread.  Calvin  says,  It  is  his  body  in  the  same  sense  that 
the  dove  (John  1,  32)  was  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Holy  Ghost 
appeared  under  the  form  of  a  dove,  which  was  the  pledge  of 
his  presence.  So  the  bread  is  the  symbol  of  Christ's  body, 
because  with  the  one  we  receive  the  other.  What  is  received, 
however,  and  what  Calvin  calls  Christ's  body,  and  sometimes 
the  substance  of  his  body,  is  not  the  body  itself,  which,  ^he  ad 
mits,  is  in  heaven  only,  but  a  life-giving  power  (vim  vivificam) 
which  flows  to  us  from  the  glorified  body  of  our  Lord.  The 
only  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  sacrament  admitted  by 

10* 


226  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  24.25. 

Calvin  was  this  presence  of  power.*  The  Reformed  churches 
teach  that  the  bread  is  called  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  same 
sense  that  the  cup  is  called  the  new  covenant.  He  who  in 
faith  receives  the  cup,  receives  the  covenant  of  which  it  was 
the  pledge ;  and  he  who  receives  in  faith  the  bread  receives 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  body  as  broken  for  sin.  The  one  is  the 
symbol  and  pledge  of  the  other. 

Broken  for  you.  In  Luke  it  is,  given  for  you.  In  Matthew 
and  Mark  these  words  are  omitted.  In  some  manuscripts  f  the 
word  (/<A.<jo/x,ei/oj/),  broken,  is  wanting  in  this  passage ;  so  that  it 
would  read  simply  for  you,  leaving  the  participle  to  be  sup 
plied  from  the  context.  Broken  or  given  for  you  means  slain, 
or  given  unto  death  for  you.  The  sacrificial  character  of  the 
death  of  Christ  enters  essentially  into  the  nature  of  this  ordi 
nance.  It  is  the  commemoration  of  his  death,  not  as  a  teacher, 
or  a  benefactor,  but  as  a  sacrifice ;  so  that  if  this  idea  be  kept 
out  of  view  the  sacrament  loses  all  its  significance  and  power. 

This  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  These  words  are  not  found 
in  Matthew  or  Mark.  They  occur  in  Luke  22,  19,  as  they  do 
here.  This  do,  i.  e.  'Do  what  I  have  just  done;  take  bread, 
consecrate  it,  break  it,  distribute  and  eat  it.  In  remembrance 
of  me,  i.  e.  that  I  may  be  remembered  as  he  who  died  for 
your  sins.  This  is  the  specific,  definite  object  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  to  which  all  other  ends  must  be  subordinate,  because 
this  alone  is  stated  in  the  words  of  institution.  It  is  of  course 
involved  in  this,  that  we  profess  faith  in  him  as  the  sacrifice 
for  our  sins ;  that  we  receive  him  as  such ;  that  we  acknow 
ledge  the  obligations  which  rest  upon  us  as  those  who  have 
been  redeemed  by  his  blood ;  and  that  we  recognize  ourselves 
as  constituent  members  of  his  church  and  all  believers  as  our 
brethren.  We  are  thus,  as  taught  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
brought  into  a  real  communion  with  Christ  and  with  all  his 
people  by  the  believing  participation  of  this  ordinance. 

25.  After  the  same  manner  also  (he  took)  the  cup, 
when  he  had  supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  testa- 

*  Hcec  communicatio  corporis  Christi,  quam  nobis  in  coena  exlnberi  dico, 
nee  localem  praesentiam,  nee  Christi  descerisum,  nee  infinitam  extensionem, 
nee  aliud  quicquam  tale  flagitat.  .  .  .  Locum  non  mutat,  ut  nobis  adsit,  sed  e 
coelo  praesentera  in  nos  carnis  snae  virtutem  transmittat. 

f  The  MSS.  A.  B.  C.  omit  /cAw/tei/or,  Grieshach  questioned  its  genuineness, 
Lachinarm  and  Tischendorf  reject  it. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  25.  227 

merit  in  my  blood  :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  (it), 
in  remembrance  of  me. 

This  second  part  of  the  service  is  introduced  by  Luke  with 
the  same  words  which  are  here  used,  though  our  translators 
there  render  them  Likewise  also  the  cup,  after  supper.  This 
latter  version  is  the  literal  and  simple  rendering  of  the  origi 
nal.  In  Matthew  and  Mark  it  is  said,  "Having  taken  the 
cup,  and  having  given  thanks."  This  explains  what  Paul  and 
Luke  mean  by  likewise,  or  after  the  same  manner.  They  in 
tend  to  say  that  Christ  did  with  the  cup  what  he  had  done 
with  the  bread,  i.  e.  he  took  it,  and  pronounced  over  it  the 
eucharistical  benediction,  i.  e.  a  blessing  connected  with 
thanksgiving.  In  this  particular  there  is  a  slight  departure  in 
our  mode  of  administering  this  ordinance,  from  the  example 
of  Christ.  With  us  there  is  generally  but  one  eucharistical 
blessing  at  the  introduction  of  the  service,  having  reference 
both  to  the  bread  and  to  the  cup.  Whereas  it  seems  that  our 
Lord  blessed  the  bread,  and  having  broken,  distributed  it  to 
his  disciples ;  and  then  took  the  cup,  and  having  blessed  it, 
gave  it  to  them  to  drink.  After  supper,  i.  e.  alter  the  con 
clusion  of  the  paschal  supper. 

Saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  my  blood.  The 
same  words  occur  in  Luke  22,  20.  In  Matthew  and  Mark  the 
corresponding  expression  is,  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New 
Testament."  The  sense  must  be  the  same.  "  The  blood  of 
the  covenant "  means  here,  as  in  Ex.  24,  8,  the  blood  by  which 
the  covenant  was  ratified  and  its  blessings  secured.  The  pas 
sage  referred  to  in  Exodus  shows  the  manner  in  which  cove 
nants  were  anciently  ratified  in  the  East.  A  victim  was  slain 
and  the  blood  sprinkled  upon  the  contracting  parties,  by  which 
they  were  solemnly  bound  to  their  mutual  engagements.  The 
word  8ta^7JK7/  so  constantly,  after  the  Vulgate,  rendered  Testa 
ment  by  our  translators,  always  in  the  New  Testament  means 
a  covenant,  unless  Heb.  9,  16  be  an  exception.  Here  that 
sense  is  required  by  the  context,  as  a  covenant  and  not  a  tes 
tament  was  ratified  by  blood.  This  covenant  is  called  new  in 
reference  to  the  Mosaic  covenant.  The  latter  was  ratified  by 
the  blood  of  animals ;  the  new,  by  the  blood  of  the  eternal 
Son  of  God ;  the  one  in  itself  could  secure  only  temporal  bene 
fits  and  the  remission  of  ceremonial  offences ;  the  other  secures 
eternal  redemption,  and  the  remission  of  sin  in  the  sight  of 
God.  As  the  Hebrews  entered  into  covenant  with  God  when 


228  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  25. 

the  blood  of  the  heifer  was  sprinkled  upon  them,  and  thereby 
bound  themselves  to  be  obedient  to  the  Mosaic  institutions, 
and  as  God  thereby  graciously  bound  himself  to  confer  upon 
them  all  its  promised  blessings  on  condition  of  that  obedience ; 
BO,  in  the  Lord's  supper,  those  who  receive  the  cup  profess  to 
embrace  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  bind  themselves  to  obedi 
ence  to  the  gospel ;  and  God  binds  himself  to  confer  on  them 
all  the  benefits  of  redemption.  In  receiving  the  cup,  there 
fore,  they  receive  the  pledge  of  their  salvation.  The  death 
of  Christ,  which  is  so  often  compared  to  a  sin-offering,  is  here, 
as  well  as  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  compared  to  a  fede 
ral  sacrifice.  The  two,  however,  do  not  differ.  The  death  of 
Christ  is  the  latter  only  in  virtue  of  its  being  the  former.  It 
ratifies  the  covenant  of  grace  and  secures  its  benefits,  only  be 
cause  it  was  a  propitiation,  i.  e.  because  it  was  a  satisfaction 
to  divine  justice,  as  is  so  clearly  taught  in  Rom.  3,  25.  26. 
Every  time,  therefore,  the  consecrated  wine  touches  the  be 
liever's  lips,  he  receives  anew  the  application  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  his  sins  and  his  reconciliation  with 
God.  If  the  Bible  says  we  are  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of 
Jesus,  1  Peter  1,  2,  why  may  we  not  be  said  to  receive  his 
blood?  If  the  former  expression  means  the  application  of  the 
benefits  of  his  sacrificial  death,  why  may  not  the  latter  mean 
the  reception  of  those  benefits  ?  Here,  as  elsewhere,  the  diffi 
culty  is  the  want  of  faith.  He  who  by  faith  appropriates  a 
divine  promise  recorded  in  the  word,  receives  the  blessing 
promised ;  and  he  who  in  the  exercise  of  faith  receives  the 
sacramental  cup  receives  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  which 
that  cup  is  the  symbol  and  the  pledge.  But  what  is  faith  ? 
or  rather,  what  is  it  that  we  are  required  to  believe,  in  order  to 
experience  all  this  ?  1.  We  must  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  he  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us.  2.  That 
his  blood  cleanses  from  all  sin.  3.  That  in  the  sacrament  he 
offers  us,  with  the  symbols  of  his  broken  body  and  his  shed 
blood,  the  benefits  of  his  death ;  and  that  he  will  certainly 
convey  those  benefits  to  all  those  who  hold  out  even  a  trem 
bling  hand  to  receive  them. 

In  Luke,  after  the  words  in  my  blood,  it  is  added,  which  is 
shed  for  you.  In  Mark  the  explanation  is,  which  is  shed  for 
many •  and  in  Matthew,  still  more  fully,  which  is  shed  for 
many  for  the  remission  of  sins.  These  are  different  forms  of 
expressing  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  death  of  Christ. 
Though  it  was  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  yet  it  was  at  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS   11,  25.26.  229 

same  time  shed  for  many,  not  merely  for  their  benefit  in  the 
general,  but  for  the  specific  object  of  securing  the  remission 
of  sins.  It  was,  therefore,  truly  a  sin-offering.  Thus  does 
Scripture  explain  Scripture.  What  is  said  concisely  in  one 
place  is  more  fully  and  clearly  stated  in  another.  I 

This  do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me. 
These  words  do  not  occur  in  Luke.  In  Matthew  the  words 
are,  Drink  ye  all  of  it.  Mark  says,  They  all  drank  of  it.  In 
each  account  the  fact  is  made  plain  that  the  cup  was  distribut 
ed  to  all  at  the  table  and  that  all  drank  of  it.  The  words  This 
do  are  to  be  understood  here  as  in  v.  25,  '  Do  what  I  have 
done,  i.  e.  bless  the  cup  and  distribute  it  among  yourselves.' 
As  oft  as  ye  drink  of  it.  This  does  not  mean  that  every  time 
Christians  drank  wine  together  they  should  do  it  in  commem 
oration  of  Christ's  death ;  but,  '  as  often  as  this  ordinance  is 
celebrated,  do  what  I  have  done,  to  commemorate  my  death.' 
The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  commemoration  of  Christ's  death,  not 
only  because  it  was  designed  for  that  purpose,  but  also  be 
cause  the  bread  and  wine  are  the  significant  symbols  of  his 
broken  body  and  shed  blood.  In  this  ordinance  therefore 
Christ  is  set  forth  as  a  sacrifice  which  at  once  makes  expiation 
for  sin  and  ratifies  the  covenant  of  grace. 

26.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink 
this  cup,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come. 

What  Paul  had  received  of  the  Lord  is  recorded  in  the 
preceding  verses.  Here  and  in  what  follows  we  have  his  own 
inferences  from  the  account  which  the  Lord  had  given  him. 
The  first  of  those  inferences  is,  that  the  Lord's  supper  is,  and 
was  designed  to  be,  a  proclamation  of  the  death  of  Christ  to 
continue  until  his  second  advent.  Those  who  come  to  it, 
therefore,  should  come,  not  to  satisfy  hunger,  nor  for  the 
gratification  of  social  feelings,  but  for  the  definite  purpose  of 
bearing  their  testimony  to  the  great  fact  of  redemption,  and 
to  contribute  their  portion  of  influence  to  the  preservation  and 
propagation  of  the  knowledge  of  that  fact.  For  indicates  the 
connection  with  what  precedes.  4 It  is  a  commemoration  of 
his  death,  for  it  is  in  its  very  nature  a  proclamation  of  that 
great  fact.'  And  it  was  not  a  temporary  institution,  but  one 
designed  to  continue  until  the  consummation.  As  the  Pass 
over  was  a  perpetual  commemoration  of  the  deliverance  out 
of  Egypt,  and  a  prediction  of  the  coming  and  death  of  the 


230  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  26.27. 

Lamb  of  God,  who  was  to  bear  the  sins  of  the  world ;  so  the 
Lord's  supper  is  at  once  the  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
Christ  and  a  pledge  of  his  coming  the  second  time  without  sin 
unto  salvation. 

27.  Wherefore  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and 
drink  (this)  cup  of  the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 

This  is  the  second  inference.  WJierefore,  i.  e.  so  that, 
hence  it  follows.  If  the  Lord's  Supper  be  in  its  very  nature  a 
proclamation  of  the  death  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  those  who 
attend  upon  it  as  an  ordinary  meal,  or  in  an  irreverent  man 
ner,  or  for  any  other  purpose  than  that  for  which  it  was  ap 
pointed,  are  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  That 
is,  they  contract  guilt  in  reference  to  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  See  James  2,  10.  The  man  who  tramples  on  the  flag 
of  his  country,  insults  his  country ;  and  he  who  treats  with  in 
dignity  the  representative  of  a  sovereign,  thereby  offends  the 
sovereign  himself.  In  like  manner,  he  who  treats  the  symbols 
of  Christ's  body  and  blood  irreverently  is  guilty  of  irreverence 
towards  Christ.  The  idea  that  he  is  so  evil  that  he  would 
have  joined  in  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord ;  or  that  he  makes 
himself  a  partaker  of  the  guilt  of  his  death,  does  not  lie  in  the 
words.  It  is  also  obvious  that  this  passage  affords  no  ground 
for  either  the  Romish  or  Lutheran  view  of  the  local  presence 
of  Christ's  body  in  the  sacrament,  since  an  insult  to  the  ap 
pointed  symbol  of  his-  body,  is  an  insult  to  his  body  itself. 
Neither  does  the  passage  countenance  the  doctrine  held  by 
both  Romanists  and  Lutherans,  that  unbelievers  receive  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  If  they  do  not  receive  them,  it  is 
asked,  how  can  they  be  guilty  in  respect  to  them  ?  By  treat 
ing  them,  in  their  appointed  symbols,  irreverently.  It  is  not 
necessary,  therefore,  in  order  to  the  guilt  here  spoken  of,  either 
that  the  body  of  Christ  should  be  locally  present,  or  that  the 
unworthy  receiver  be  a  partaker  of  that  body,  which  is  re 
ceived  by  faith  alone.  In  our  version  it  is,  "  whosoever  shall 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup ; "  in  the  Greek  it  is  (TJ)  or, 
not  and.  And  this  the  sense  requires.  The  irreverent  use  of 
either  the  bread  or  the  cup  in  this  ordinance  involves  the  guilt 
of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks ;  because  the  indignity  ex 
tends  to  the  whole  service. 

But  what  IB  it  to  eat  and  drink  unworthily  f     It  is  not  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS   11,  27.28.  231 

eat  and  drink  with  a  consciousness  of  unworthiness,  for  such  a 
sense  of  ill-desert  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  acceptable  com 
munion.  It  is  not  the  whole,  but  the  consciously  sick  whom 
Christ  came  to  heal.  Nor  is  it  to  eat  with  doubt  and  misgiv 
ing  of  our  being  duly  prepared  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table ; 
for  such  doubts,  although  an  evidence  of  a  weak  faith,  indicate 
^  better  state  of  mind  than  indifference  or  false  security.  In 
the  Larger  Catechism  of  our  Church,  in  answer  to  the  ques 
tion,  whether  one  who  doubts  of  his  being  in  Christ,  may  come 
to  the  Lord's  supper,  it  is  said,  "  One  who  doubteth  of  his 
being  in  Christ,  or  of  his  due  preparation  to  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  may  have  true  interest  in  Christ,  though  he 
be  not  yet  assured  thereof;  and  in  God's  account  hath  it,  if 
he  be  duly  affected  with  the  apprehension  of  the  want  of  it, 
and  unfeignedly  desires  to  be  found  in  Christ,  and  to  depart 
from  iniquity ;  in  which  case  (because  promises  are  made,  and 
this  sacrament  is  appointed,  for  the  relief  even  of  weak  and 
doubting  Christians)  he  is  to  bewail  his  unbelief,  and  labour 
to  have  his  doubts  resolved  ;  and  so  doing,  he  may  and  ought 
to  come  to  the  Lord's  supper,  that  he  may  be  further  strength 
ened."  To  eat  or  drink  unworthily  is  in  general  to  come  to 
the  Lord's  table  in  a  careless,  irreverent  spirit,  without  the  in 
tention  or  desire  to  commemorate  the  death  of  Christ  as  the 
sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  without  the  purpose  of  complying 
with  the  engagements  which  we  thereby  assume.  The  way  in 
which  the  Corinthians  ate  unworthily  was,  that  they  treated 
the  Lord's  table  as  though  it  were  their  own ;  making  no  dis 
tinction  between  the  Lord's  supper  and  an  ordinary  meal; 
coming  together  to  satisfy  their  hunger,  and  not  to  feed  on 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  refusing  to  commune  with 
their  poorer  brethren.  This,  though  one,  is  not  the  only  way 
in  which  men  may  eat  and  drink  unworthily.  All  that  is 
necessary  to  observe  is,  that  the  warning  is  directly  against 
the  careless  and  profane,  and  not  against  the  timid  and  the 
doubting. 

28.  But  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him 
eat  of  (that)  bread,  and  drink  of  (that)  cup. 

This  is  the  third  inference  from  the  account  of  the  Lord's 
supper  which  Paul  had  received.  It  requires  self-examination 
and  preparation  in  order  to  being  worthily  received.  If  it  be 
a  commemoration  of  Christ's  death  ;  if  we  are  therein  "  made 


232  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  28.29. 

partakers  of  his  body  and  blood  ; "  if  we  contract  such  guilt 
by  eating  and  drinking  unworthily ;  in  other  words,  if  such 
blessings  attend  the  worthy  receiving,  and  such  guilt  the 
unworthy  receiving  of  this  ordinance,  it  is  evident  that  we 
should  not  approach  it  without  due  self-inspection  and  prepa 
ration.  Let  a  man  examine  himself.  In  other  words,  let  him 
ascertain  whether  he  has  correct  views  of  the  nature  and  de 
sign  of  the  ordinance,  and  whether  he  has  the  proper  state  of 
mind.  That  is,  whether  he  desires  thankfully  to  commemo 
rate  the  Lord's  death,  renewedly  to  partake  of  the  benefits  of 
that  death  as  a  sacrifice  for  his  sins,  publicly  to  accept  the  cov 
enant  of  grace  with  all  its  promises  and  obligations,  and  to 
signify  his  fellowship  with  his  brethren  as  joint  members  with 
himself  of  the  body  of  Christ.  And  so  let  him  eat.  That  is, 
after  this  self-examination,  and,  as  is  evidently  implied,  after 
having  ascertained  that  he  possesses  the  due  preparation.  It 
is  not  essential,  however,  to  this  preparation,  as  before  re 
marked,  that  we  should  be  assured  of  our  good  estate,  but 
simply  that  we  have  the  intelligent  desire  to  do  what  Christ 
requires  of  us  when  we  come  to  his  table.  If  we  come  humbly 
seeking  him,  he  will  bid  us  welcome,  and  feed  us  with  that 
bread  whereof  if  a  man  eat,  he  shall  never  die. 

29.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,* 
eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  discern 
ing  the  Lord's  body. 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  self-examination  in  pre 
paration  for  the  Lord's  supper  is  necessary.  It  is  because  he 
that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily  (in  the  sense  before  ex 
plained),  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  to  himself.  That  is, 
he  incurs  the  manifestation  of  God's  displeasure  by  the  act  of 
eating.  The  word  damnation,  used  in  our  version,  originally 
and  properly  means  simply  condemnation,  and  not  hopeless 
and  final  perdition,  which  is  its  modern  and  popular  sense.  In 
the  original  the  word  is  /cpijaa  without  the  article,  and  thcre- 

*  The  word  oj/a£i'o>s,  unworthily,  is  omitted  by  the  MSS.  A.  C.,  and  is  re 
jected  by  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf.  If  discarded,  the  sense  of  the  passage 
is  either,  '  The  eater  and  drinker,  i.  e.  he  who  eats  and  drinks  at  the  Lord's 
table  as  at  an  ordinary  meal,  eats  judgment  to  himself; '  or,  '  He  that  eats, 
not  discerning  the  Lord's  body,  eats  judgment  to  himself.'  The  common  text 
has  in  its  support  the  majority  of  ancient  MSS.,  and  is  followed  by  most 
editors. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  29.30.  233 

fore  simply  judgment,  not  the  judgment.  The  meaning  obvi 
ously  is,  that  the  unworthy  eater  contracts  guilt ;  he  exposes 
himself  to  the  judgments  of  God.  What  kind  of  judgments 
the  apostle  had  in  his  mind  is  plain  from  the  next  verse,  wherp 
he  refers  to  sickness  and  death.*  This  verse  is  only  a  repeti 
tion  of  the  sentiment  expressed  in  v.  27,  where  he  who  cats 
unworthily  is  said  to  contract  guilt  in  reference  to  the  body 
of  the  Lord.  Not  discerning,  i.  e.  because  he  does  not  dis 
cern  the  Lord's  body.  The  word  Sta/<p<W,  translated  to  dis 
cern,  means  to  separate,  then  to  cause  to  differ,  as  4,  7 ;  and 
also,  judge  of,  either  in  the  sense  of  discriminating  .one  thing 
from  another,  or  in  the  sense  of  estimating  aright.  This 
passage  may  therefore  mean,  not  discriminating  the  Lord's 
body,  i.  e.  making  no  difference  between  the  bread  in  the 
sacrament  and  ordinary  food ;  or,  it  may  mean,  not  estimating 
it  aright,  not  reverencing  it  as  the  appointed  symbol  of  the 
body  of  the  Lord.  In  either  case  the  offence  is  the  same. 
The  ground  of  the  condemnation  incurred  is,  regarding  and 
treating  the  elements  in  the  Lord's  supper  as  though  there 
was  nothing  to  distinguish  them  from  ordinary  bread  and 
wine.  Here,  as  before,  it  is  the  careless  and  profane  who  are 
warned.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  these  passages  which 
should  surround  the  Lord's  table  with  gloom.  We  are  not 
called  unto  the  mount  covered  with  clouds  and  darkness, 
from  which  issue  the  signs  of  wrath,  but  unto  Mount  Zion,  to 
the  abode  of  mercy  and  grace,  where  all  is  love — the  dying 
love  of  him  who  never  breaks  the  bruised  reed. 

30.  For  this  cause  many  (are)  weak  and  sickly 
among  you,  and  many  sleep. 

For  this  cause,  that  is,  because  those  who  partake  of  the 
Lord's  supper  unworthily  incur  the  judgment  of  God;  many 
are  weak  and  sickly.  The  distinction  between  these  words 
made  by  commentators,  is,  that  the  former  designates  those 
whose  strength  decays  as  it  were  of  itself,  and  the  latter, 
those  rendered  infirm  by  sickness.  The  latter  term  is  the 
stronger  of  the  two.  And  many  sleep,  i.  e.  have  already  died. 
As  there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  intimate  that  these  terms 

*  BENGEL'S  remark  on  this  clause  is :  Kpi/j.a  sine  articulo  judicium  aliquod, 
morbum,  mortemve  corporis,  ut  qui  Domini  corpus  non  discernunt,  corpore 
suo  luant.  Non  dicit  rb  /corcta/j^a,  condemnationem. 


234      I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  30.  31.  32.  33.  34. 

are  used  figuratively  of  moral  infirmities  and  spiritual  declen 
sion,  they  should  be  taken  in  their  literal  sense.  Paul  knew 
that  the  prevailing  sickness  and  frequent  deaths  among  the 
Christians  of  Corinth  were  a  judgment  from  God  on  account 
of  the  irreverent  manner  in  which  they  had  celebrated  the 
Lord's  supper. 

31.  For  if  we  would  judge  ourselves,  we  should 
not  be  judged. 

For,  i,e.  these  afflictions  are  judgments  from  God,  because 
of  your  sin  in  this  matter ;  for,  if  we  judge  ourselves,  that  is,  if 
we  examine  ourselves  (see  v.  28)  and  prepare  ourselves  for 
the  Lord's  table,  we  should  not  be  judged,  i.  e.  thus  afflicted. 
It  is  because  we  do  not  sit  in  judgment  on  ourselves,  that  God 
judges  us. 

32.  But  when  we  are  judged,  we  are  chastened  of 
the  Lord,  that  we  should  not  be  condemned  with  the 
world. 

These  judgments  were  chastisements  designed  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  suffered,  to  bring  them  to  repentance, 
that  they  might  not  be  finally  condemned  with  the  world ; 
that  is,  with  unbelievers.  The  world  often  means  mankind  as 
distinguished  from  the  church,  or  those  chosen  out  of  the 
world.  "  They  are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the 
world,"  John  17,  16.  What  Paul  says  of  the  design  of  these 
judgments,  proves  that  even  the  extreme  irreverence  with 
which  he  charges  the  Corinthians  in  reference  to  the  Lord's 
supper,  was  not  an  unpardonable  sin. 

33.  34.  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when  ye  come 
together   to  eat,  tarry  one  for  another.     And  if  any 
man  hunger,  let  him  eat  at  home ;  that  ye  come  not 
together  unto  condemnation.     And  the  rest  will  I  set 
in  order  when  I  come. 

The  two  great  evils  connected  with  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  supper  at  Corinth  were,  first,  that  it  was  not  a  com 
munion,  one  took  his  supper  before  another,  v.  21 ;  and  sec 
ondly,  that  they  came  to  the  Lord's  table  to  satisfy  their 


I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  33.34.  235 

hunger.  That  is,  they  made  it  an  ordinary  meal.  They  thus 
sinned  against  their  brethren,  v.  22,  and  they  sinned  against 
Christ,  v.  27.  In  the  conclusion,  therefore,  of  the  whole  discus 
sion,  he  exhorts  them  to  correct  these  evils ;  to  wait  for  each 
other,  and  make  it  a  joint  service ;  and  to  satisfy  their  hunger 
at  home,  and  come  together  only  to  commemorate  the  Lord's 
death.  Mildly  as  this  exhortation  is  expressed,  it  is  enforced 
by  the  solemn  warning  already  given,  that  ye  come  not  to 
gether  to  condemnation,  that  is,  so  as  to  incur  the  displeasure 
of  God.  The  rest  will  I  set  in  order  when  (whenever  ws  av)  I 
may  come.  There  were,  it  seems,  other  irregularities  of  less 
importance  than  those  above  mentioned,  which  the  apostle 
leaves  to  be  corrected  until  he  should  again  visit  Corinth. 
The  epistles  of  Paul  abound  in  evidence  of  the  plenary  author 
ity  exercised  by  the  apostles  over  the  churches.  The  word 
Starao-o-w,  to  set  in  order,  implies  authoritative  direction ;  see 
7,  17.  16,  1.  Matt.  11,  1.  The  apostles  were  rendered  infal 
lible,  as  the  representatives  of  Christ,  to  teach  his  doctrines, 
to  organize  the  church  and  determine  its  form  of  government, 
and  to  regulate  its  worship.  And  what  they  ordained  has 
binding  force  on  the  church  to  this  day.  What  Paul  teaches 
in  this  chapter  concerning  the  nature  and  mode  of  celebrating 
the  Lord's  supper,  has  determined  the  views  and  practice  of 
evangelical  Christians  in  every  part  of  the  world.  It  is  not  at 
all  wonderful,  considering  that  the  festivals  of  the  Jews,  and 
especially  the  Passover,  as  well  as  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the 
Gentiles,  were  social  repasts,  and  especially  considering  that 
our  Lord  instituted  this  ordinance  in  connection  with  the 
Paschal  supper,  that  the  early  Christians  should  have  so  gener 
ally  combined  it  with  a  social  meal ;  or  that  this  custom  should 
have  continued  so  long  in  the  church.  Nor  is  it  a  matter  of 
surprise,  that  the  social  element  in  this  combined  service 
should  so  often  have  prevailed  over  the  religious  one.  That 
this  was  to  a  lamentable  degree  the  case  in  Corinth,  is  evident 
from  this  chapter;  and  it  is  probable  from  Jude  12,  that  the 
evil  was  by  no  means  confined  to  Corinth.  That  apostle, 
speaking  of  certain  sensual  persons,  says,  "  These  are  spots  in 
your  feasts  of  charity,  when  they  feast  with  you  without  fear." 
Hence  the  unspeakable  importance  of  the  instructions  and  di 
rections  given  by  St.  Paul,  which  are  specially  designed  to 
separate  the  Lord's  supper  as  a  religious  rite  from  the  social 
element  with  which  it  was  combined.  The  apostle  urges  that 
neither  the  sacrament  itself,  nor  any  feast  with  which  it  might 


236  I.  CORINTHIANS  11,  33.34. 

be  connected,  should  be  regarded  as  the  occasion  of  satisfying 
hunger.  The  communion  of  saints  and  the  commemoration 
of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  are  the  only 
legitimate  objects  which  could  be  contemplated  in  the  service. 
And  by  exhibiting  the  intimate  fellowship  with  the  Lord  in 
volved  in  the  right  use  of  this  ordinance,  and  the  dreadful 
consequences  of  unworthily  participating,  he  has  raised  it  to  a 
purely  religious  service,  and  made  it  the  highest  act  of  wor 
ship.  From  one  extreme  the  church  gradually  passed  over  to 
the  opposite.  From  regarding  it  as  it  had  been  in  Corinth, 
little  more  than  an  ordinary  meal,  it  came  to  be  regarded  as 
an  awful  mystery,  a  sacrifice  which  the  people  were  to  wit 
ness,  and  in  which  they  were  to  adore  the  Redeemer  as  locally 
present  in  his  corporeal  nature  under  the  form  of  a  wafer !  So 
strong  a  hold  had  this  unscriptural  view  taken  of  the  mind  of 
the  church,  that  Luther  found  it  impossible  to  emancipate 
himself  from  the  belief  of  the  local  presence  of  Christ's  real 
body  in  this  sacrament.  And  even  Calvin  could  not  divest 
himself  of  the  conviction,  not  only  of  its  supernatural  charac 
ter,  which  all  admit  who  regard  it  as  a  means  of  grace,  but 
also  of  its  being  truly  miraculous.  It  was  only  after  a  severe 
struggle  that  the  Reformed  church  got  back  to  the  simple, 
yet  sublime  view  of  the  ordinance  presented  by  the  apostle 
Paul.  The  danger  has  often  since  been  that  the  church  should 
go  back  to  the  Corinthian  extreme,  and  look  upon  the  Lord's 
supper  as  a  simple  commemoration,  involving  nothing  super 
natural  either  in  its  nature  or  eifects.  Our  only  safety  is  in 
adhering  strictly  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  The 
apostle  tells  us,  on  the  authority  of  a  direct  revelation  from 
the  Lord  himself,  that  while  the  ordinance  is  designed  as  a 
memorial  of  Christ's  death,  it  involves  a  participation  of  his 
body  and  blood,  not  of  their  material  substance,  but  of  their 
sacrificial  efficacy,  so  that,  "  although  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  not  corporally  or  carnally  present  in,  with,  or  under 
the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper ;  and  yet  are  spirit 
ually  present  to  the  faith  of  the  receiver,  no  less  truly  and 
really  than  the  elements  themselves  are  to  their  outward 
senses ;  so  they  that  worthily  communicate  in  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  do  therein  feed  upon  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  not  after  a  corporal  or  carnal,  but  in  a  spiritual  man 
ner;  yet  truly  and  really,  while  by  faith  they  receive  and 
apply  unto  themselves  Christ  crucified  and  all  the  benefits  of 
his  death."  Larger  Catechism. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12.  237 


'CHAPTER  XII. 

Of  Spiritual  Gifts,  vs.  1-31. 

THE  ancient  prophets  had  clearly  predicted  that  the  Messianic 
period  should  be  attended  by  a  remarkable  effusion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  those  days,"  it  is 
said  in  the  prophecies  of  Joel,  "  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of 
my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh ;  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters 
shall  prophesy,  and  your  young  men  shall  see  visions,  and 
your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams."  Our  Lord,  before  his 
crucifixion,  promised  to  send  the  Comforter,  who  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  to  instruct  and  guide  his  church,  John  14,  &c.  And 
after  his  resurrection  he  said  to  his  disciples,  "These  signs 
shall  follow  them  that  believe.  In  my  name  shall  they  cast 
out  devils;  they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues;  they  shall 
take  up  serpents ;  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall 
not  hurt  them ;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick  and  they  shall 
recover,"  'Mark  16,  17. 18.  And  immediately  before  his  as 
cension  he  said  to  the  disciples,  "  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence,"  Acts  1,  5.  Accord 
ingly,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  these  promises  and  prophecies 
were  literally  fulfilled.  The  peculiarity  of  the  new  dispensa 
tion  consisted,  in  the  first  place,  in  the  general  diffusion  of 
these  gifts.  They  were  not  confined  to  any  one  class  of  the 
people,  but  extended  to  all  classes ;  male  and  female,  young 
and  old ;  and  secondly,  in  the  wonderful  diversity  of  these 
supernatural  endowments.  Under  circumstances  so  extraordi 
nary  it  was  unavoidable  that  many  disorders  should  arise. 
Some  men  would  claim  to  be  the  organs  of  the  Spirit,  who 
were  deluded  or  impostors ;  some  would  be  dissatisfied  with 
the  gifts  which  they  had  received,  and  envy  those  whom  they 
regarded  as  more  highly  favoured ;  others  would  be  inflated, 
and  make  an  ostentatious  display  of  their  extraordinary  pow 
ers  ;  and  in  the  public  assemblies  it  might  be  expected  that 
the  greatest  confusion  would  arise  from  so  many  persons  being 
desirous  to  exercise  their  gifts  at  the  same  time.  To  the  cor 
rection  of  these  evils,  all  of  which  had  manifested  themselves 
in  the  church  of  Corinth,  the  apostle  devotes  this  and  the  two 
following  chapters.  It  is  impossible  to  read  these  chapters 
without  being  deeply  impressed  by  the  divine  wisdom  with 
which  they  are  pervaded.  After  contrasting  the  condition  of 


238  I.  CORINTHIANS  12. 

the  Corinthians,  as  members  of  that  body  which  was  instinct 
with  the  life-giving  Spirit  of  God,  with  their  former  condition 
as  the  senseless  worshippers  of  dumb  idols,  he,  First,  lays  down 
the  criterion  by  which  they  might  decide  whether  those  who 
pretended  to  be  the  organs  of  the  Spirit  were  really  under  his 
influence.  How  do  they  speak  of  Christ  ?  Do  they  blaspheme, 
or  do  they  worship  him  ?  If  they  openly  and  sincerely  recog 
nize  Jesus  as  the  Supreme  Lord,  then  they  are  under  the  influ 
ence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  vs.  1-3.  Secondly,  these  gifts, 
whether  viewed  as  graces  of  the  Spirit,  or  as  forma  of  minis 
tering  to  Christ,  or  the  effects  of  God's  power,  that  is,  whether 
viewed  in  relation  to  the  Spirit,  to  the  Son,  or  to  the  Father, 
are  but  different  manifestations  of  the  Holy  Ghost  dwelling  in 
his  people,  and  are  all  intended  for  the  edification  of  the  church, 
vs.  4-7.  Thirdly,  he  arranges  them  under  three  heads,  1.  The 
word  of  wisdom  and  the  word  of  knowledge.  2.  Faith,  the 
gift  of  healing,  the  power  of  working  miracles,  prophesying, 
and  the  discerning  of  spirits.  3.  The  gift  of  tongues  and  the 
interpretation  of  tongues,  vs.  8-10.  Fourthly,  these  gifts  are 
not  only  all  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  but  they  are  distributed 
according  to  his  sovereign  will,  v.  11.  Fifthly,  there  is  there 
fore  in  this  matter  a  striking  analogy  between  the  church  and 
the  human  body.  For,  1.  As  the  body  is  one  organic  whole, 
because  animated  by  one  spirit,  so  the  church  is  one  because 
of  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  principle  of  its  life. 
2.  As  the  unity  of  life  in  the  body  is  manifested  in  a  diversity 
of  organs  and  members;  so  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
church  is  manifested  by  a  diversity  of  gifts  and  offices.  3.  As 
the  very  idea  of  the  body  as  an  organization  supposes  this  di 
versity  in  unity,  the  same  is  true  in  regard  to  the  church.  4. 
As  in  the  human  body  the  members  are  mutually  dependent, 
and  no  one  exists  for  itself  alone  but  for  the  body  as  a  whole, 
so  also  in  the  church  there  is  the  same  dependence  of  its  mem 
bers  on  each  other,  and  their  various  gifts  are  not  designed 
for  the  exclusive  benefit  of  those  who  exercise  them,  but  for 
the  edification  of  the  whole  church.  5.  As  in  the  body  the 
position  and  function  of  each  member  are  determined  not  by 
itself,  but  by  God,  so  also  these  spiritual  gifts  are  distributed 
according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  their  author.  G.  In  the 
body  the  least  attractive  parts  are  those  which  are  indispensa 
ble  to  its  existence,  and  so  in  the  church  it  is  not  the  most  at 
tractive  gifts  which  are  the  most  useful.  Sixthly,  the  apostle 
draws  from  this  analogy  the  following  inferences.  1.  Every 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  1.2.  239 

one  should  be  contented  with  the  gift  which  he  has  received 
of  the  Lord,  just  as  the  hand  and  foot  are  contented  with 
their  position  and  office  in  the  body.  2.  There  should  be  no 
exaltation  of  one  member  of  the  church  over  others,  on  the 
ground  of  the  supposed  superiority  of  his  gifts.  3.  There 
should,  and  must  be  mutual  sympathy  between  the  members 
of  the  church,  as  there  is  between  the  members  of  the  body. 
One  cannot  suffer  without  all  the  others  suffering  with  it.  No 
one  lives,  or  acts,  or  feels  for  itself  alone,  but  each  in  all  the 
rest,  vs.  12-27.  In  conclusion  the  apostle  shows  that  what  he> 
had  said  with  regard  to  these  spiritual  gifts,  applies  in  all  its 
force  to  the  various  offices  of  the  church,  which  are  the  organs 
through  which  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  are  exercised,  vs.  28-31. 

1.  Now  concerning  spiritual  (gifts),  brethren,  I 
would  not  have  you  ignorant. 

Instead  of  beginning  with,  in  the  second  place,  in  continu 
ance  of  the  enumeration  begun  in  11,  17,  he  passes  to  tho 
second  ground  of  censure,  by  the  simple  now  (Sej  as  the  parti 
cle  of  transition.  The  misuse  of  the  spiritual  gifts,  especially 
of  the  gift  of  tongues,  was  the  next  topic  of  rebuke.  Con 
cerning  spiritual,  whether  men  or  gifts,  depends  on  the  con 
text,  as  the  word  may  be  either  masculine  or  neuter.  The 
latter  is  the  more  natural  and  common  explanation,  because 
the  gifts  rather  than  the  persons  are  the  subject  of  discussion  ; 
and  because  in  v.  31,  and  14,  1,  the  neuter  form  is  used.  I 
would  not  have  you  ignorant,  i.  e.  I  wish  you  to  understand 
the^  origin  and  intent  of  these  extraordinary  manifestations  of 
divine  power,  and  to  be  able  to  discriminate  between  the  true 
and  false  claimants  to  the  possession  of  them. 

2.  Ye  know  that  ye  were  Gentiles,  carried  away 
unto  these  dumb  idols,  even  as  ye  were  led. 

Here,  as  in  Ephesians  2,  11,  the  apostle  contrasts  the  for 
mer  with  the  present  condition  of  his  readers.  Formerly, 
they  were  Gentiles,  now  they  were  Christians.  Formerly, 
they  were  the  worshippers  and  consulters  of  dumb  idols,  now 
they  worshipped  the  living  and  true  God.  Formerly,  they 
were  swayed  by  a  blind,  unintelligent  impulse,  which  carried 
them  away,  they  knew  not  why  nor  whither ;  now  they  were 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Their  former  con- 


240  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  2.3. 

dition  is  here  adverted  to  as  affording  a  reason  why  they 
needed  instruction  on  this  subject.  It  was  one  on  which  their 
previous  experience  gave  them  no  information. 

Ye  know  that  *  ye  were  Gentiles.  This  is  the  comprehen 
sive  statement  of  their  former  condition.  Under  it  are  includ 
ed  the  two  particulars  which  follow.  First,  they  were  addict 
ed  to  the  worship  of  dumb  idols,  i.  e.  voiceless,  comp.  Hab.  2, 
18.  19,  "Woe  unto  him  that  saith  unto  the  wood,  Awake ; 
unto  the  dumb  stone,  Arise,  it  shall  teach,"  and  Ps.  115,  5. 
135,  16.  To  worship  dumb  idols,  gods  who  could  neither 
hear  nor  save,  expresses  in  the  strongest  terms  at  once  their 
folly  and  their  misery.  Secondly,  they  were  carried  away  to 
this  worship  just  as  they  were  led,  i.  e.  they  were  controlled 
by  an  influence  which  they  could  not  understand  or  resist. 
Compare,  as  to  the  force  of  the  word  here  used,  Gal.  2,  13. 
2  Pet.  3,  17.  It  is  often  spoken  of  those  who  are  led  away  to 
judgment,  to  prison,  or  to  execution.  Mark  14,  53.  John  18, 
13.  Matt.  27,  21.  Paul  means  to  contrast  this  (dTrayea-^cu)  be 
ing  carried  away,  as  it  were,  by  force,  with  the  (ayecr&u  TTVCV- 
pm),  being  led  by  the  Spirit.  The  one  was  an  irrational  influ 
ence  controlling  the  understanding  and  will ;  the  other  is  an 
influence  from  God,  congruous  to  our  nature,  and  leading  to 
good. 

3.  Wherefore  I  give  you  to  understand,  that  no 
man  speaking  by  the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus  ac 
cursed  :  and  (that)  no  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the 
Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Wherefore,  i.  e.  because  I  would  not  have  you  ignorant  on 
this  subject.  The  first  thing  which  he  teaches  is  the  criterion 
or  test  of  true  divine  influence.  This  criterion  he  states  first 
negatively  and  then  positively.  The  negative  statement  is, 
that  no  man  speaking  by  the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus  ac 
cursed.  To  speak  by  (or  in)  the  Spirit,  is  to  speak  under  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  the  ancient  prophets  did.  Matt.  22, 
43.  Mark  12,  36.  N~o  one  speaking  (AoAwi/,  using  his  voice), 
calleth  (Xeyei  pronounces)  Jesus  to  be  accursed.  Or,  according 
to  another  reading,  utters  the  words,  "Jesus  is  accursed." 

*  The  common  text  is  on,  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  I.,  and  many  of  the 
versions  and  Fathers  have  cm  ore  (that  when),  which  reading  is  adopted  by 
Lachmann,  Scholz,  and  Tischendorf.  The  construction  is  then  irregular. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  3.  241 

By  Jesus,  the  historical  person  known  among  men  by  that 
name  is  indicated.     And,  therefore,  Paul  uses  that  word  and 
not  Christ,  which  is  a  term  of  office.     Accursed,  i.  e.  anathe 
ma.     This  word  properly  means  something  consecrated  to 
God;   and  as  among  the  Jews  what  was  thus  consecrated 
could  not  be  redeemed,  but,  if  a  living  thing,  must  be  put  to 
death,  Lev.  27,  28.  29,  hence  the  word  was  used  to  designate 
any  person  or  thing  devoted  to  destruction ;  and  then  with 
the  accessory  idea  of  the  divine  displeasure,  something  devot 
ed  to  destruction  as  accursed.     This  last  is  its  uniform  mean 
ing  in  the  New  Testament.     Rom.  9,  3.    Gal.  1,  8.  9.    1  Cor. 
16,  22.     Hence  to  say  that  Jesus  is  anathema,  is  to  say  he  was 
a  malefactor,  one  justly  condemned  to  death.     This  the  Jews 
said  who  invoked  his  blood  upon  their  heads.     The  affirmative 
statement  is,  no  man  can  say  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.    The  word  /cvpios,  LORD,  is  that  by  which  the 
word  Jehovah  is  commonly  rendered  in  the  Greek  version  of 
the  Old  Testament.    To  say  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  therefore,  in 
the  sense  of  the  apostle,  is  to  acknowledge  him  to  be  truly 
God.     And  as  the  word  Jesus  here  as  before  designates  the 
historical  person  known  by  that  name,  who  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  to  say  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  is  to  acknowledge 
that  that  person  is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh.     In  other  words, 
the  confession  includes  the  acknowledgment  that  he  is  truly 
God  and  truly  man.     What  the  apostle  says,  is  that  no  man 
can  make    this    acknowledgment  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  of  course  does  not  mean  that  no  one  can  utter  these 
words  unless  under  special  divine  influence ;  but  it  means  that 
no  one  can  truly  believe  and  openly  confess  that  Jesus  is  God 
manifest  in  the  flesh  unless  he  is  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.     This  is  precisely  what  our  Lord  himself  said,  when 
Peter  confessed  him  to  be  the  Son  of  God.     "Blessed  art 
thou,  Simon  Bar-jona;  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed 
it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven."  Matt.  16,  17. 
The  same  thing  is  also  said  by  the  apostle  John.     "  Hereby 
know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God ;  every  spirit  that  confesseth  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of  6od :  and  every  spirit 
that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is 
not  of  God,"  1  John  4,  2.  3;  and  in  v.  15,  "Whosoever  shall 
confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him, 
and  he  in  God."    To  blaspheme  Christ,  maledlcere  Christo, 
Plin.  Epist.  X.  97,  was  the  form  for  renouncing  Christianity 
before  the  Roman  tribunals ;  and  saying,  "  I  believe  that  Jesus 
11 


242  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  3.4.5.6. 

is  the  Son  of  God,"  Acts  8,  37,  was  the  form  of  professing  al 
legiance  to  Christ.  Men  acknowledged  themselves  to  be 
Christians,  by  acknowledging  the  divinity  of  Christ.  These 
passages,  therefore,  teach  us  first,  whom  we  are  to  regard  as 
Christians,  viz.,  those  who  acknowledge  and  worship  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  as  the  true  God ;  secondly,  that  the  test  of  the  di 
vine  commission  of  those  who  assume  to  be  teachers  of  the 
gospel,  is  not  external  descent,  or  apostolic  succession,  but 
soundness  in  the  faith.  If  even  an  apostle  or  angel  teach  any 
other  gospel,  we  are  to  regard  him  as  accursed,  Gal.  1,  8. 
And  Paul  tells  the  Corinthians  that  they  were  to  discriminate 
between  those  who  were  really  the  organs  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  those  who  falsely  pretended  to  that  office,  by  the  same 
criterion.  As  it  is  unscriptural  to  recognize  as  Christians  those 
who  denv  the  divinity  of  our  Lord ;  so  it  is  unscriptural  for 
any  man  to  doubt  his  own  regeneration,  if  he  is  conscious  that 
he  sincerely  worships  the  Lord  Jesus. 

4-6.  Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the 
same  Spirit.  And  there  are  differences  of  administra 
tions,  but  the  same  Lord.  And  there  are  diversities 
of  operations,  but  it  is  the  same  God  which  worketh 
all  in  all. 

The  second  thing  which  the  apostle  teaches  concerning 
these  gifts  is,  their  diversity  of  character  in  connection  with 
the  unity  of  their  source  and  design.  He  is  not,  however,  to 
be  understood  as  here  dividing  these  gifts  into  three  classes, 
tinder  the  heads  of  gifts,  ministrations,  and  operations  /  but 
as  presenting  them  each  and  all  under  three  different  aspects. 
Viewed  in  relation  to  the  Spirit,  they  are  gifts ;  in  relation  to 
the  Lord,  they  are  ministrations ;  and  in  relation  to  God,  they 
are  operations,  i.  e.  effects  wrought  by  his  power.  And  it  is 
the  same  Spirit,  the  same  Lord,  and  the  same  God  who  are 
concerned  in  them  all.  That  is,  the  same  Spirit  is  the  giver ; 
it  is  he  who  is  the  immediate  and  proximate  author  of  all  these 
various  endowments.  It  is  the  same  Lord  in  whose  service 
and  by  whose  authority  these  various  gifts  are  exercised. 
They  are  all  different  forms  in  which  he  is  served,  or  minis 
tered  to.  And  it  is  the  same  God  the  Father,  who  having  ex 
alted  the  Lord  Jesus  to  the  supreme  headship  of  the  church, 
and  having  sent  the  Holy  Ghost,  works  all  these  effects  in  the 


I.   CORINTHIANS   12,4.5.6.7.  243 

minds  of  men.  There  is  no  inconsistency  between  this  state 
ment  and  v.  11,  where  the  Spirit  is  said  to  work  all  these 
gifts ;  because  God  works  by  his  Spirit.  So  in  one  place  we 
are  said  to  be  born  of  God,  and  in  another  to  be  born  of  the 
Spirit.  Thus,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  underlies  the  whole 
scheme  of  redemption  in  its  execution  and  application  as  well 
as  in  its  conception. 

Those  who  understand  this  passage  as  describing  three  dis 
tinct  classes  of  gifts,  one  as  derived  from  the  Spirit,  the  other 
from  the  Son,  and  the  other  from  the  Father,  suppose  that  to 
the  first  class  belong  wisdom,  knowledge,  and  faith ;  to  the 
second,  church-offices  ;  and  to  the  third,  gift  of  miracles.  But 
this  view  of  the  passage  is  inconsistent  with  the  constant  and 
equal  reference  of  these  gifts  to  the  Holy  Spirit ;  they  all  come 
under  the  head  of  "  spiritual  gifts ; "  and  with  what  follows  in 
vs.  8-10,  where  a  different  classification  is  given.  That  is,  the 
nine  gifts  there  mentioned  are  not  classified  in  reference  to 
their  relation  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit ;  and  therefore  it 
is  unnatural  to  assume  such  a  classification  here.  They  are  all 
and  equally  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  modes  of  serving  the  Son,  and 
effects  due  to  the  efficiency  of  the  Father. 

7.  But  the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to 
every  man  to  profit  withal. 

J3ut,  i.  e.  notwithstanding  these  gifts  have  the  same  source, 
they  are  diverse  in  their  manifestations.  To  each  one,  i.  e.  to 
every  believer,  or  every  recipient  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  given 
a  manifestation  of  the  Spirit.  That  is,  the  Spirit  who  dwells 
in  all  believers  as  the  body  of  Christ,  manifests  himself  in  one 
w^iy  in  one  person,  and  in  another  way  in  another  person. 
The  illustration  which  the  apostle  subsequently  introduces  is 
derived  from  the  human  body.  As  the  principle  of  life  mani 
fests  itself  in  one  organ  as  the  faculty  of  vision,  and  in  another 
as  the  faculty  of  hearing,  so  the  Holy  Ghost  manifests  himself 
variously  in  the  different  members  of  the  church ;  in  one  as 
the  gift  of  teaching,  in  another  as  the  gift  of  healing.  This  is 
one  of  those  pregnant  truths,  compressed  in  a  single  sentence, 
which  are  developed  in  manifold  forms  in  different  parts  of 
the  word  of  God.  It  is  the  truth  of  which  this  whole  chapter 
is  the  exposition  and  the  application.  To  profit  withal  (?rpos 
ro  crv[ji<t>6pov),i.  e.  for  edification.  This  is  the  common  object 
of  all  these  gifts.  They  are  not  designed  exclusively  or  mainly 


244  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  7. 

for  the  benefit,  much  less  for  the  gratification  of  their  recipi 
ents;  but  for  the  good  of  the  church.  Just  as  the  power 
of  vision  is  riot  for  the  benefit  of  the  eye,  but  for  the  man. 
When,  therefore,  the  gifts  of  God,  natural  or  supernatural, 
are  perverted  as  means  of  self-exaltation  or  aggrandizement, 
it  is  a  sin  against  their  giver,  as  well  as  against  those  for 
whose  benefit  they  were  intended. 

With  regard  to  the  gifts  mentioned  in  the  following  verses, 
it  is  to  be  remarked,  first,  that  the  enumeration  is  not  intend 
ed  to  include  all  the  forms  in  which  the  Spirit  manifested  his 
presence  in  the  people  of  God.  Gifts  are  elsewhere  mentioned 
which  are  not  found  in  this  catalogue ;  comp.  Rom.  12,  4-8, 
and  v.  28  of  this  chapter.  Secondly,  that  although  the  apos 
tle  appears  to  divide  these  gifts  into  three  classes,  the  princi 
ple  of  classification  is  not  discernible.  That  is,  we  can  dis 
cover  no  reason  why  one  gift  is  in  one  class  rather  than  in 
another ;  why,  for  example,  prophecy,  instead  of  being  asso 
ciated  with  other  gifts  of  teaching,  is  connected  with  those  of 
healing  and  working  miracles.  The  different  modes  of  classi 
fication  which  have  been  proposed,  even  when  founded  on  a 
real  difference,  cannot  be  applied  to  the  arrangement  given 
by  the  apostle.  Some  would  divide  them  into  natural  and 
supernatural.  But  they  are  all  supernatural,  although  not  to 
the  same  degree  or  in  the  same  form.  There  are  gifts  of  the 
Spirit  which  are  ordinary  and  permanent,  such  as  those  of 
teaching  and  ruling,  but  they  are  not  included  in  this  enume 
ration,  which  embraces  nothing  which  was  not  miraculous,  or 
at  least  supernatural.  Others,  as  Neander,  divide  them  into 
those  exercised  by  word,  and  those  exercised  by  deeds.  To 
the  former  class  belong  those  of  wisdom,  knowledge,  prophecy, 
and  speaking  with  tongues ;  and  to  the  latter  the  gifts  of 
healing  and  miracles.  Others,  again,  propose  a  psychological 
division,  i.  e.  one  founded  on  the  different  faculties  involved  in 
their  exercise.  Hence  they  are  distinguished  as  those  which 
concern  the  feelings,  those  which  pertain  to  the  intelligence, 
and  those  which  relate  to  the  will.  But  this  is  altogether 
arbitrary,  as  all  these  faculties  are  concerned  in  the  exercise 
of  every  gift.  It  is  better  to  take  the  classification  as  we  find 
it,  without  attempting  to  determine  the  principle  of  arrange 
ment,  which  may  have  been  in  a  measure,  so  to  speak,  fortui 
tous,  or  determined  by  the  mere  association  of  ideas,  rather 
than  by  any  characteristic  difference  in  the  gifts  themselves. 
The  Scriptures  are  much  more  like  a  work  of  nature  than  a 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  7.8.  245 

work  of  art ;  much  more  like  a  landscape  than  a  building. 
Things  spring  up  where  we  cannot  see  the  reason  why  they 
arc  there,  rather  than  elsewhere,  while  every  thing  is  in  its 
right  place. 

8.  For  to  one  is  given  by  the  Spirit  the  word  of 
wisdom;  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge  by  the 
same  Spirit ; 

In  v.  7,  he  had  said,  "  To  each  one  is  given  a  manifestation 
of  the  Spirit,"  for  to  one  is  given  one  gift,  and  to  another, 
another.  What  follows,  therefore,  is  the  illustration  and  con 
firmation  of  what  precedes.  The  point  to  be  illustrated  is  the 
diversity  of  forms  in  which  the  same  Spirit  manifests  himself 
in  different  individuals.  "  To  one  is  given  the  word  of  wis 
dom,  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge."  The  word  of  wis 
dom,  is  the  gift  of  speaking  or  communicating  ^  wisdom ;  and 
the  word  of  knowledge  is  the  gift  of  communicating  know 
ledge.  As  to  the  difference,  however,  between  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  as  here  used,  it  is  not  easy  to  decide.  Some  say 
the  former  is  practical,  and  the  latter  speculative.  Others^ 
just  the  reverse ;  and  passages  may  be  cited  in  favour  of 
either  view.  Others  say  that  wisdom  refers  to  what  is  per 
ceived  by  intuition,  i.  e.  what  is  apprehended  (as  they  say)  by 
the  reason ;  and  knowledge  what  is  perceived  by  the  under 
standing.  The  effect  of  the  one  is  spiritual  discernment ;  of 
the  other,  scientific  knowledge ;  i.  e.  the  logical  nature  and 
relations  of  the  truths  discerned.  Others  say  that  wisdom  is 
the  gospel,  the  whole  system  of  revealed  truth,  and  the  word 
of  wisdom  is  the  gift  of  revealing  that  system  as  the  object  of 
faith.  In  favour  of  this  view  are  these  obvious  considerations, 
1.  That  Paul  frequently  uses  the  word  in  this  sense.  In  ch.  2 
he  says,  we  speak  wisdom,  the  wisdom  of  God,  the  hidden 
wisdom  which  the  great  of  this  world  never  could  discover, 
but  which  God  has  revealed  by  his  Spirit.  2.  That  gift  stands 
first  as  the  most  important,  and  as  the  characteristic  gift  of 
the  apostles,  as  may  be  inferred  from  v.  28,  where  the  arrange 
ment  of  offices  to  a  certain  extent  corresponds  with  the  ar 
rangement  of  the  gifts  here  presented.  Among  the  gifts,  the 
first  is  the  word  of  wisdom ;  and  among  the  offices,  the  first  is 
that  of  the  apostles.  It  is  perfectly  natural  that  this  corre 
spondence  should  be  observed  at  the  beginning,  even  if  it  be 
not  carried  out.  This  gift  in  its  full  measure  belonged  to  the 


246  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  8.9. 

apostles  alone;  partially,  however,  also,  to  the  prophets  of  the 
New  Testament.  Hence  apostles  and  prophets  are  often  as 
sociated  as  possessing  the  same  gift,  although  in  different 
degrees.  "  Built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  pro 
phets,"  Eph.  2,  20.  "  As  now  revealed  unto  the  holy  apostles 
and  prophets  by  the  Spirit,"  Eph.  3,  5  ;  see  also  4,  11.  The 
characteristic  difference  between  these  classes  of  officers  was, 
that  the  former  were  endowed  with  permanent  and  plenary, 
the  latter  with  occasional  and  partial,  inspiration.  By  the 
word  of  knowledge,  as  distinguished  from  the  word  of  wisdom, 
is  probably  to  be  understood  the  gift  which  belonged  to  teach 
ers.  Accordingly,  they  follow  the  apostles  and  prophets  in 
the  enumeration  given  in  v.  28.  The  word  of  knoicledge  was 
the  gift  correctly  to  understand  and  properly  to  exhibit  the 
truths  revealed  by  the  apostles  and  prophets.  This  agrees 
with  13,  8,  where  the  gift  of  knowledge  is  represented  as  per 
taining  to  the  present  state  of  existence.  By  the  same  Spirit, 
literally,  according  to  the  same  Spirit,  i.  e.  according  to  his 
will,  or  as  he  sees  fit ;  see  v.  11.  The  Spirit  is  not  only  the 
author,  but  the  distributor  of  these  gifts.  And  therefore 
sometimes  they  are  said  to  be  given  (Sta)  by,  and  sometimes 
(Kara)  according  to,  the  Spirit. 

9.  To  another  faith  by  the  same  Spirit;  to  another 
the  gifts  of  healing  by  the  same  Spirit ; 

There  is  a  distinction  indicated  in  the  Greek  which  is  not 
expressed  in  our  version.  The  main  divisions  in  this  enumera 
tion  seem  to  be  indicated  by  ere/aos,  and  the  subordinate  ones 
by  aXXos,  though  both  words  are  translated  by  another ;  the 
former,  however,  is  a  stronger  expression  of  difference.  Here, 
therefore,  where  erepw  is  used,  a  new  class  seems  to  be  intro 
duced.  To  the  first  class  belong  the  word  of  wisdom  and  the 
word  of  knowledge  ;  to  the  second,  all  that  follow  except  the 
last  two.  To  another  faith.  As  faith  is  here  mentioned  as  a 
gift  peculiar  to  some  Christians,  it  cannot  mean  saving  faith, 
which  is  common  to  all.  It  is  generally  supposed  to  mean  the 
faith  of  miracles  to  which  our  Lord  refers,  Matt.  17,  19.  20, 
and  also  the  apostle  in  the  following  chapter,  "Though  I  have 
all  faith,  so  that  I  could  remove  mountains,"  13,  2.  But  to  this 
it  is  objected,  that  the  gift  of  miracles  is  mentioned  immedi 
ately  afterwards  as  something  different  from  the  gift  of  faith. 
Others  say  it  is  that  faith  which  manifests  itself  in  all  the  forms 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  9.  10.  247 

enumerated  under  this  class,  that  is,  in  miracles,  in  healing,  in 
prophecy,  and  in  discerning  of  spirits.  But  then  it  is  nothing 
peculiar  •  it  is  a  gift  common  to  all  under  this  head,  whereas 
it  is  as  much  distinguished  from  them,  as  they  are  from  each 
other  Besides,  no  degree  of  faith  involves  inspiration  which 
is  supposed  in  prophecy.  In  the  absence  of  distinct  data  lor 
determining  the  nature  of  the  faith  here  intended,  it  is  safest, 
perhaps,  to  adhere  to  the  simple  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
assume  that  the  gift  meant  is  a  higher  measure  of  the  ordinary 
grace  of  faith.  Such  a  faith  as  enabled  men  to  become  con 
fessors  and  martyrs,  and  which  is  so  fully  illustrated  in  Heb. 
11  33-40.  This  is  something  as  truly  wonderful  as  the  gilt 
of  miracles.  To  another  the  gifts  of  healing,  i.  e.  gifts  by 
which  healing  of  the  sick  was  effected,  Acts  4,  30.  This  evi 
dently  refers  to  the  miraculous  healing  of  diseases. 

10.  To  another  the  working  of  miracles ;  to  another 
prophecy  ;  to  another  discerning  of  spirits ;  to  another 
(divers)  kinds  of  tongues ;  to  another  the  interpreta 
tion  of  tongues  : 

Working  of  miracles,  literally,  effects  which  are  miracu 
lous,  or  which  consist  in  miracles.  This  is  more  comprehen 
sive  than  the  preceding  gift.  Some  had  merely  the  gilt  oi 
healino-  the  sick,  while  others  had  the  general  power  ot  work 
ing  miracles.  This  was  exemplified  in  the  death  of  Ananias, 
in°raising  Dorcas,  in  smiting  Elymas  with  blindness,  and  in 
many  other  cases. 

To  another  prophecy.  The  nature  of  this  gift  is  clearly 
exhibited  in  the  14th  ch.  It  consisted  in  occasional  inspira 
tion  and  revelations,  not  merely  or  generally  relating  to  the 
future,  as  in  the  case  of  Agabus,  Acts  11,  28,  but  either  in 
some  new  communications  relating  to  faith  or  duty,  or  simply 
an  immediate  impulse  and  aid  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  pre 
senting  truth  already  known,  so  that  conviction  and  repent 
ance  were  the  effects  aimed  at  and  produced ;  comp.  14,  25. 
The  difference,  as  before  stated,  between  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  was,  that  the  former  were  permanently  inspired,  so 
that  their  teaching  was  at  all  times  infallible,  whereas  the 
prophets  were  infallible  only  occasionally.  The  ordinary 
teachers  were  uninspired,  speaking  from  the  resources  of  their 
own  knowledge  and  experience. 


248  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  10. 

To  another  discerning  of  spirits.  It  appears,  especially 
from  the  epistles  of  the  apostle  John,  that  pretenders  to  inspi 
ration  were  numerous  in  the  apostolic  age.  He  therefore 
exhorts  his  readers,  "  to  try  the  spirits,  whether  they  be  of 
God ;  for  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world," 
1  John  4,  1.  It  was  therefore  of  importance  to  have  a  class 
of  men  with  the  gift  of  discernment,  who  could  determine 
whether  a  man  was  really  inspired,  or  spoke  only  from  the  im 
pulse  of  his  own  mind,  or  from  the  dictation  of  some  evil  spirit. 
In  14,  29,  reference  is  made  to  the  exercise  of  this  gift.  Com 
pare  also  1  Thess.  5,  20.  21. 

To  another  divers  kinds  of  tongues.  That  is,  the  ability 
to  speak  in  languages  previously  unknown  to  the  speakers. 
The  nature  of  this  gift  is  determined  by  the  account  given  in 
Acts  2,  4-11,  where  it  is  said,  the  apostles  spoke  "with  other 
tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance ; "  and  people  of 
all  the  neighbouring  nations  asked  with  astonishment,  "  Are 
not  all  these  that  speak  Galileans  ?  And  how  hear  we  every 
man  in  our  own  tongue  wherein  we  were  born  ?  "  It  is  im 
possible  to  deny  that  the  miracle  recorded  in  Acts  consisted 
in  enabling  the  apostles  to  speak  in  languages  which  they  had 
never  learnt.  Unless,  therefore,  it  be  assumed  that  the  gift 
of  which  Paul  here  speaks  was  something  of  an  entirely  differ 
ent  nature,  its  character  is  put  beyond  dispute.  The  identity 
of  the  two,  however,  is  proved  from  the  sameness  of  the  terms 
by  which  they  are  described.  In  Mark  16,  17,  it  was  prom 
ised  that  the  disciples  should  speak  "  with  new  tongues."  In 
Acts  2,  4,  it  is  said  they  spoke  "with  other  tongues."  In 
Acts  10,  46,  and  19,  6,  it  is  said  of  those  on  whom  the  Holy 
Ghost  came,  that  "  they  spake  with  tongues."  It  can  hardly 
be  doubted  that  all  these  forms  of  expression  are  to  be  under 
stood  in  the  same  sense;  that  to  speak  "with  tongues"  in 
Acts  10,  46,  means  the  same  thing  as  speaking  "with  other 
tongues,"  in  Acts  2,  4,  and  that  this  again  means  the  same  as 
speaking  "with  new  tongues,"  as  promised  in  Mark  16,  17. 
If  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  thus  historically  and  philolo- 
gically  determined  for  Acts  and  Mark,  it  must  also  be  deter 
mined  for  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  If  tongues  means 
languages  in  the  former,  it  must  have  the  same  meaning  in  the 
latter.  We  have  thus  two  arguments  in  favour  of  the  old  in 
terpretation  of  this  passage.  First,  that  the  facts  narrated  in 
A-cts  necessitate  the  interpretation  of  the  phrase  "  to  speak 
with  other  tongues  "  to  mean  to  speak  with  foreign  languages. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  10.  249 

Second,  that  the  interchange  of  the  expressions,  new  tongues, 
otker  tongues,  and  tongues,  in  reference  to  the  same  event, 
shows  that  the  last  mentioned  (to  speak  with  tongues)  must 
have  the  same  sense  with  the  two  former  expressions,  which 
can  only  mean  to  speak  in  new  languages.  A  third  argument 
is,  that  the  common  interpretation  satisfies  all  the  facts  of  the 
case.  Those  facts  are,  1.  That  what  was  spoken  with  tongues 
was  intelligible  to  those  who  understood  foreign  languages,  as 
appears  from  Acts  2,  11.  Therefore  the  speaking  was  not 
an  incoherent,  unintelligible  rhapsody.  2.  What  was  uttered 
were  articulate  sounds,  the  vehicle  of  prayer,  praise,  and 
thanksgiving,  1  Cor.  14,  14-17.  3.  They  were  edifying,  and 
therefore  intelligible  to  him  who  uttered  them,  1  Cor.  14,  4. 
16.  4.  They  admitted  of  being  interpreted,  which  supposes 
them  to  be  intelligible.  5.  Though  intelligible  in  themselves, 
and  to  the  speaker,  they  were  unintelligible  to  others,  that  is, 
to  those  not  acquainted  with  the  language  used ;  and  conse 
quently  unsuited  for  an  ordinary  Christian  assembly.  The 
folly  which  Paul  rebuked  was,  speaking  in  Arabic  to  men 
who  understood  only  Greek.  The  speaker  might  understand 
what  he  said,  but  others  were  not  profited,  1  Cor.  14,  2.  19. 
6.  The  illustration  employed  in  1  Cor.  14,  7.  11,  from  musical 
instruments,  and  from  the  case  of  foreigners,  requires  the 
common  interpretation.  Paul  admits  that  the  sounds  uttered 
were  "not  without  signification,"  v.  10.  His  complaint  is, 
that  a  man  who  speaks  in  an  unknown  tongue  is  to  him  a  for 
eigner,  v.  11.  This  illustration  supposes  the  sounds  uttered 
to  be  intelligible  in  themselves,  but  not  understood  by  those 
to  whom  they  were  addressed.  7.  The  common  interpretation 
is  suited  even  to  those  passages  which  present  the  only  real 
difiiculty  in  the  case ;  viz.,  those  in  wilich  the  apostle  speaks 
of  the  understanding  as  being  unfruitful  in  the  exercise  of  the 
gift  of  tongues,  and  those  in  which  he  contrasts  praying  with 
the  spirit  and  praying  with  the  understanding,  14,  14.  15. 
Although  these  passages,  taken  by  themselves,  might  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  speaker  himself  did  not  understand  what  he 
said,  and  even  that  his  intellect  was  in  abeyance,  yet  they  may 
naturally  mean  only  that  the  understanding  of  the  speaker 
was  unprofitable  to  others ;  and  speaking  with  the  understand 
ing  may  mean  speaking  intelligibly.  It  is  not  necessary,  there 
fore,  to  infer  from  these  passages,  that  to  speak  with  tongues 
was  to  speak  in  a  state  of  ecstasy,  in  a  manner  unintelligible  to 
any  human  being.  8.  The  common  interpretation  is  also  con- 

11* 


250  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  10. 

Bistent  with  the  fact  that  the  gift  of  interpretation  was  distinct 
from  that  of  speaking  with  tongues.  If  a  man  could  speak  a 
foreign  language,  why  could  he  not  interpret  it  ?  Simply, 
because  it  was  not  his  gift.  What  he  said  in  that  foreign  lan 
guage,  he  said  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit ;  had  he  at 
tempted  to  interpret  it  without  the  gift  of  interpretation,  he 
would  be  speaking  of  himself,  and  not  "  as  the  Spirit  gave  him 
utterance."  In  the  one  case  he  was  the  organ  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  the  other  he  was  not. 

Fourth  argument.  Those  who  depart  from  the  common 
interpretation  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  differ  indefinitely  among 
themselves  as  to  its  true  nature.  Some  assume  that  the  word 
tongues  (y/Xooo-o-cu)  does  not  here  mean  languages,  but  idioms 
or  peculiar  and  unusual  forms  of  expression.  To  speak  with 
tongues,  according  to  this  view,  is  to  speak  in  an  exalted 
poetic  strain,  beyond  the  comprehension  of  common  people. 
But  it  has  been  proved  from  the  expressions  new  and  other 
tongues,  and  from  the  facts  recorded  in  Acts,  that  the  word 
•y/Xwcro-at  (tongues)  must  here  mean  languages.  Besides,  to 
speak  in  exalted  language  is  not  to  speak  unintelligibly.  The 
Grecian  people  understood  the  loftiest  strains  of  their  orators 
and  poets.  This  interpretation  also  gives  to  the  word  yAwo-am 
a  technical  sense  foreign  to  all  scriptural  usage,  and  one  which 
is  entirely  inadmissible,  at  least  in  those  cases  where  the  sin 
gular  is  used.  A  man  might  be  said  to  speak  in  "  phrases," 
but  not  in  "  a  phrase."  Others  say  that  the  word  means  the 
tongue  as  the  physical  organ  of  utterance  ;  and  to  speak  with 
the  tongue  is  to  speak  in  a  state  of  excitement  in  which  the 
understanding  and  will  do  not  control  the  tongue,  which  is 
moved  by  the  Spirit  to  utter  sounds  which  are  as  unintelli 
gible  to  the  speaker  as  to  others.  But  this  interpretation 
docs  not  suit  the  expressions  other  tongues  and  new  tongues^ 
and  is  irreconcilable  with  the  account  in  Acts.  Besides  it  de 
grades  the  gift  into  a  mere  frenzy.  It  is  out  of  analogy  with 
all  Scriptural  facts.  The  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject 
to  the  prophets.  The  Old  Testament  seers  were  not  beside 
themselves,  and  the  apostles  in  the  use  of  the  gift  of  tongues 
were  calm  and  rational,  speaking  the  wonderful  works  of  God 
in  a  way  which  the  foreigners  gathered  in  Jerusalem  easily 
understood.  Others,  again,  admit  that  the  word  tongues 
means  languages,  but  deny  that  they  were  languages  foreign 
to  the  speaker.  To  speak  with  tongues,  they  say,  was  to 
Bpeak  in  an  incoherent,  unintelligible  manner,  in  a  state  of 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  10.  251 

ecstasy,  when  the  mind  is  entirely  abstracted  from  the  external 
world,  and  unconscious  of  things  about  it,  as  in  a  dream  or 
trance.  This,  however,  is  liable  to  the  objections  already  ad 
duced  against  the  other  theories.  Besides,  it  is  evident  from 
the  whole  discussion,  that  those  who  spake  with  tongues  were 
self-controlled.  They  could  speak  or  not  as  they  pleased. 
Paul  censures  them  for  speaking  when  there  was  no  occasion 
for  it,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  produce  confusion  and  dis 
order.  They  were,  therefore,  not  in  a  state  of  uncontrollable 
excitement,  unconscious  of  what  they  said  or  did.  It  is  un 
necessary  to  continue  this  enumeration  of  conjectures ;  what 
has  already  been  said  would  be  out  of  place  if  the  opinions  re 
ferred  to  had  not  found  favour  in  England  and  in  our  own 
country. 

The  arguments  against  the  common  view  of  the  nature  of 
the  gift  of  tongues,  (apart  from  the  exegetical  difficulties  with 
which  it  is  thought  to  be  encumbered,)  are  not  such  as  to 
make  much  impression  upon  minds  accustomed  to  reverence 
the  Scriptures.  1.  It  is  said  the  miracle  was  unnecessary,  as 
Greek  was  understood  wherever  the  apostles  preached.  This, 
no  doubt,  is  in  a  great  degree  true.  Greek  was  the  language 
of  educated  persons  throughout  the  Roman  empire,  but  it  had 
not  superseded  the  national  languages  in  common  life ;  neither 
was  the  preaching  of  the  apostles  confined  to  the  limits  of  the 
Roman  empire.  Besides,  this  supposes  that  the  only  design 
of  the  gift  was  to  facilitate  the  propagation  of  the  gospel. 
This  was  doubtless  one  of  the  purposes  which  it  was  intended 
to  answer;  but  it  had  other  important  uses.  It  served  to 
prove  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  it  symbolized 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  common  interest  of  all  na 
tions  in  the  gospel.  See  the  remarks  on  Acts  2,  4.  2.  It  is 
said  God  is  not  wont  by  miracles  to  remove  difficulties  out  of 
the  way  of  his  people,  which  they  can  surmount  by  labour. 
3.  Others  pronounce  it  impossible  that  a  man  should  speak  in 
a  language  which  he  had  never  learnt.  But  does  it  thence 
follow  that  God  cannot  give  him  the  ability  ?  4.  It  appears 
that  Paul  and  Barnabas  did  not  understand  the  speech  of 
Lycaonia,  Acts  14,  11-14.  The  gift  of  tongues,  however,  was 
not  the  ability  to  speak  all  languages.  Probably  most  of 
those  who  received  the  gift,  could  speak  only  in  one  or  two. 
Paul  thanked  God  that  he  had  the  gift  in  richer  measure  than 
any  of  the  Corinthians.  5.  The  gift  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  made  subservient  to  the  missionary  work.  It  certainly 


252  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  10.11. 

was  in  the  first  instance,  as  recorded  in  Acts,  and  may  have 
been  afterwards.  6.  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  14,  14-19,  does  not  place 
speaking  with  tongues  and  speaking  in  one's  own  language  in 
opposition ;  but  speaking  with  the  understanding  and  speak 
ing  with  the  spirit ;  and  therefore  to  speak  with  tongues,  is  to 
speak  without  understanding,  or  in  a  state  of  ecstasy.  This 
is  a  possible  interpretation  of  this  one  passage  considered  in 
itselfj  but  it  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  all  those  passages 
which  prove  that  speaking  with  tongues  was  not  an  involun 
tary,  incoherent,  ecstatic  mode  of  speaking.  The  passage  re 
ferred  to,  therefore,  must  be  understood  in  consistency  with 
the  other  passages  referring  to  the  same  subject.  Though 
there  are  difficulties  attending  any  view  of  the  gift  in  question, 
arising  from  our  ignorance,  those  connected  with  the  common 
interpretation  are  incomparably  less  than  those  which  beset 
any  of  the  modern  conjectures. 

To  another,  the  interpretation  of  tongues.  The  nature  of 
this  gift  depends  on  the  view  taken  of  the  preceding.  Com 
monly,  at  least,  the  man  using  a  foreign  language  was  able  to 
understand  it,  see  14,  2.  4. 16,  and  may  have  had  the  gift  of 
interpretation  in  connection  with  the  gift  of  tongues.  It  is 
possible,  however,  that  in  some  cases  he  did  not  himself  un 
derstand  the  language  which  he  spoke,  and  then  of  course  he 
would  need  an  interpreter.  But  even  when  he  did  understand 
the  language  which  he  used,  he  needed  a  distinct  gift  to  make 
him  the  organ  of  the  Spirit  in  its  interpretation.  If  speaking 
with  tongues  was  speaking  incoherently  in  ecstasy,  it  is  hard 
to  see  how  what  was  said  could  admit  of  interpretation.  Un 
less  coherent  it  was  irrational,  and  if  irrational,  it  could  not  be 
translated. 

11.  But  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self 
same  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  will. 

JSut  all  these,  &c.,  i.  e.  notwithstanding  the  diversity  of 
these  gifts  they  have  a  common  origin.  They  are  wrought  by 
the  same  Spirit.  What  therefore  in  v.  6  is  referred  to  the 
efficiency  of  God,  is  here  referred  to  the  efficiency  of  the 
Spirit.  This  is  in  accordance  with  constant  scriptural  usage. 
The  same  effect  is  sometimes  attributed  to  one,  and^sometimes 
to  another  of  the  persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  This  supposes 
that,  being  the  same  in  substance  (or  essence)  in  which  divine 
power  inheres,  they  cooperate  in  the  production  of  these  ef- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  11.12.13.  *53 

fects.  "Whatever  tLe  Father  does,  he  does  through  the  Spirit. 
The  Holy  Ghost  not  only  produces  these  gifts  in  the  minds  of 
men,  but  he  distributes  them  severally  (iSta)  to  every  man  as 
fie  will,  i.  e.  not  according  to  the  merits  or  wishes  of  men,  but 
according  to  his  own  will.  This  passage  clearly  proves  that1 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  person.  Will  is  here  attributed  to  him, 
which  is*  one  of  the  distinctive  attributes  of  a  person.  Both 
the  divinity  and  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  therefore 
involved  in  the  nature  of  the  work  here  ascribed  to  him. 

12.  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  mem 
bers,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one  body,  being 
many,  are  one  body :  so  also  (is)  Christ. 

For  introduces  an  illustration  of  the  truth  taught  in  the 
preceding  verses.  Every  organism,  or  organic  whole,  sup 
poses  diversity  and  unity.  That  is,  different  parts  united  so 
as  to  constitute  one  whole.  The  apostle  had  taught  that  in 
the  unity  of  the  church  there  is  a  diversity  of  gifts.  This  is 
illustrated  by  a  reference  to  the  human  body.  It  is  one,  yet 
it  consists  of  many  members.  And  this  diversity  is  essential 
to  unity ;  for  unless  the  body  consisted  of  many  members,  it 
would  not  be  a  (o-w/xa)  body,  i.  e.  an  organic  whole.  So  also 
is  Christ,  i.  e.  the  body  of  Christ,  or  the  Church.  As  the 
body  consists  of  many  members  and  is  yet  one ;  so  it  is  with 
the  church,  it  is  one  and  yet  consists  of  many  members,  each 
having  its  own  gift  and  office.  See  Rom.  12,  4.  5.  Eph.  1,  23, 
and  4,  4. 16. 

13.  Tor  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  (we  be)  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  (we 
be)  bond  or  free ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink 
into  one  Spirit. 

This  is  the  proof  of  what  immediately  precedes.  The 
church  is  one,  for  by  one  Spirit  we  were  all  baptized  into  one 
body.  The  word  is  not  in  the  present  tense,  but  in  the  aorist. 
'  We  were,  by  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  constituted  one  body.' 
This  is  commonly,  and  even  by  the  modern  commentators, 
understood  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism ;  and  the  apostle  is 
made  to  say  that  by  the  Holy  Ghost  received  in  baptism  we 
were  made  one  body.  But  the  Bible  clearly  distinguishes  be- 


254  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  13. 

tween  baptism  with  water  and  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
"  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  .  .  .  but  he  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Matt.  3,  1 1.  "  He  that  sent  me  to  bap 
tize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon  whom  thou 
shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him,  the 
same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  John  1,  33. 
"  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence,"  Acts  1,  5.  These 
passages  not  only  distinguish  between  the  baptism  of  water 
and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  but  they  disconnect  them.  The 
baptism  to  which  Acts  1,  5  refers  took  place  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  baptism  of  water. 
It  is  not  denied  that  the  one  is  sacramentally  connected  with 
the  other ;  or  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  often  attends  the 
baptism  of  water;  but  they  are  not  inseparably  connected. 
The  one  may  be  without  the  other.  And  in  the  present  pas 
sage  there  does  not  seem  to  be  even  an  allusion  to  water  bap 
tism,  any  more  than  in  Acts  1,  5.  Paul  does  not  say  that  we 
are  made  one  body  by  baptism,  but  by  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  that  is,  by  spiritual  regeneration.  Any  commu 
nication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  a  baptism,  because  the 
Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  out,  and  those  upon  whom  he  is 
poured  out,  whether  in  his  regenerating,  sanctifying,  or  in 
spiring  influences,  are  said  to  be  baptized.  In  all  the  passages 
above  quoted  the  expression  is  Iv  irvev/xaTi,  by  the  Spirit,  as  it 
is  here.*  It  is  not  therefore  by  baptism  as  an  external  rite, 
but  by  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  we  are 
made  members  of  the  body  of  Christ.  Unto  one  body  means 
so  as  to  constitute  one  body  (ets,  unto,  expressing  the  result). 
JSTo  matter  how  great  may  have  been  the  previous  difference, 
whether  they  were  Jews  or  Gentiles,  bond  or  free,  by  this 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  all  who  experience  it  are  merged  into 
one  body ;  they  are  all  intimately  and  organically  united  as  par 
taking  of  the  same  life.  Comp.  Gal.  3,  28.  And  this  is  the 
essential  point  of  the  analogy  between  the  human  body  and 
the  church.  As  the  body  is  one  because  pervaded  and  ani 
mated  by  one  soul  or  principle  of  life,  so  the  church  is  one  be 
cause  pervaded  by  one  Spirit.  And  as  all  parts  of  the  body 
which  partake  of  the  common  life  belong  to  the  body,  so  all 

*  It  maybe  remarked  in  passing  that  ^airri^ff^ai  eV  -n-ffv/j-art  cannot  mean 
to  be  immersed  in  the  Spirit,  any  more  than  PairrifefrSai  uSar/,  Luke  3,  16, 
Acts  1,  5,  can  by  possibility  mean  to  be  immersed  in  water. 


I.  CORINTHIAN'S  12,  13.  255 

those  in  whom  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  are  members  of  the 
church  which  is  the  body  of  Christ.  And  by  parity  of  reason 
ing,  those  in  whom  the  Spirit  does  not  dwell  are  not  members 
of  Christ's  body.  They  may  be  members  of  the  visible  or 
nominal  church,  but  they  are  not  members  of  the  church  in 
that  sense  in  which  it  is  the  body  of  Christ.  This  passage, 
therefore,  not  only  teaches  us  the  nature  of  the  church,  but 
also  the  principle  of  its  unity.  It  is  one,  not  as  united  under 
one  external  visible  head,  or  under  one  governing  tribunal, 
nor  in  virtue  of  any  external  visible  bond,  but  in  virtue  of  the 
indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  all  its  members.  And  this  in 
ternal  spiritual  union  manifests  itself  in  the  profession  of  the 
same  faith,  and  in  all  acts  of  Christian  fellowship. 

And  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit.    This  is 
a  difficult  clause.     To  drink  into  is  an  unexampled  phrase, 
whether  in  English  or  Greek.     The  text  varies.     In  some 
MSS.  it  is  €i«  eV  Tri/ev/xa,  into  one  Spirit,  in  others,  ei/  Tri/eC/xa,  one 
Spirit.     The  latter  is  adopted  by  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf. 
If  this  be  preferred,  the  sense  is,  'We  have  all  drank  one 
Spirit.'      That  is,  we  have  all  been  made  partakers  ^of  one 
Spirit.     Compare  John  7,  37,  and  other  passages,  in  which  the 
Spirit  is  compared  to  water  of  which  men  are  said  to  drink. 
The  meaning  of  the  passage  according  to  this  reading  is  sim 
ple  and  pertinent.     4  By  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  we 
have  all  been  united  in  one  body  and  made  partakers  of  one 
Spirit.'     If  the  common  text  be  preferred,  the  most  natural 
interpretation  would  seem  to  be,  c  We  have  all  been  ^made  to 
drink  so  as  to  become  one  Spirit.'     The  words  (ets  ev  wvev/xa) 
unto  one  Spirit,  would  then  correspond  to  (ek  ev  orfyta)  unto 
one  body.     The  allusion  is  supposed  by  Luther,  Calvin  and 
Beza  to  be  to  the  Lord's  Supper.     '  By  baptism  we  become 
one  body,  and  by  drinking  (of  the  cup,  i.  e.  by  the  Lord's 
Supper)  we  become  one  body.'     But  this  allusion  is  not  only 
foreign  to  the   context,  but  is  not  indicated  by  the  words. 
How°can  the  simple  word  tTroTia-Srjpev,  made  to  drink,  in  such 
a  connection,  mean  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?    Besides, 
as  the  modern  commentators  all  remark,  the  tense  of  the  verb 
forbids  this  interpretation.     It  must  express  the  same  time 
with  the  preceding  verb.     '  We  were  all  baptized  (€/foirr«r3ij- 
fxev),  and  we  were  all  made  to  drink  (eirorur^fAcv).'  ^  It  is 
something  done  in  the  past,  not  something  continued  in  the 
present  that  the  word  expresses.     If  any  thing  is  to  be  sup 
plied  it  is  not  the  word  cup,  but  the  Spirit,  i.  e.  the  water  of 


256         I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  13.  14.  15.  16. 

life.  '  We  have  been  made  to  drink  (i.  e.  of  the  Spirit)  so  as 
to  become  one  spirit.'  Another  interpretation  of  the  common 
text  supposes  that  the  preposition  (et?)  into  belongs  to  the 
construction  of  the  verb — to  drink  into  being  equivalent  to 
drink  of.  The  sense  is  then  the  same  as  in  the  reading  with 
out  the  eis,  '  We  have  all  drank  of  one  Spirit.'  The  doctrine 
taught  is  clear,  viz.,  that  by  receiving  the  Spirit  we  are  all 
made  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  that  it  is  in  virtue 
of  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  that  the  church  is  one. 

14.  For  the  body  is  not  one  member,  but  many. 

This  is  a  proof  that  diversity  of  gifts  and  members  is  neces 
sary  to  the  unity  of  the  church.  The  church  no  more  consists 
of  persons  all  having  the  same  gifts,  than  the  body  is  all  eye 
or  all  ear.  As  the  body  is  not  one  member,  but  many,  so  the 
church  is  not  one  member,  but  many.  The  word  member 
means  a  constituent  part  having  a  function  of  its  own.  It  is 
not  merely  a  multiplicity  of  parts  that  is  necessary  to  the  body ; 
nor  a  multiplicity  of  persons  that  is  necessary  to  the  church ; 
but  in  both  cases  what  is  required  is  a  multiplicity  of  members 
in  the  sense  just  stated.  To  a  certain  extent  what  Paul  says 
of  the  diversity  of  gifts  in  individual  members  of  the  church, 
may,  in  the  existing  state  of  things,  be  applied  to  different 
denominations  of  Christians.  No  one  is  perfect  or  complete  in 
itself;  and  no  one  can  say  to  the  others,  I  have  no  need  of  you. 
Each  represents  something  that  is  not  so  well  represented  in 
the  others.  Each  has  its  own  function  to  exercise  and  work 
to  perform,  which  coiild  not  so  well  be  accomplished  without 
it.  As,  therefore,  harmony  and  cooperation,  sympathy  and 
mutual  affection,  are  required  between  individual  Christians 
as  constituent  members  of  Christ's  body,  so  also  should  they 
prevail  between  different  denominations.  It  is  only  when  the 
hand  undertakes  to  turn  the  foot  out  of  the  body,  that  the 
foot  is  bound  in  self-defence  and  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  to 
defend  its  rights. 

15.  16.  If  the  foot  shall  say,  Because  I  am  not  the 
hand,  I  am  not  of  the  body ;  is  it  therefore  not  of  the 
body  ?     And  if  the  ear  shall  say,  Because  I  am  not 
the  eye,  I  am  not  of  the  body ;  is  it  therefore  not  of 
the  body  ? 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  15.  16.  17.  18.         257 

The  first  and  most  obvious  conclusion  from  the  view  which 
Paul  had  given  of  the  nature  of  the  church  is  the  duty  of  con 
tentment.  It  is  just  as  unreasonable  and  absurd  for  the  foot 
to  complain  that  it  is  not  the  hand,  as  for  one  member  of  the 
church  to  complain  that  he  is  not  another;  that  is,  for  a 
teacher  to  complain  that  he  is  not  an  apostle  ;  or  for  a  dea 
coness  to  complain  that  she  is  not  a  presbyter  ;  or  for  one  who 
had  the  gift  of  healing  to  complain  that  he  had  not  the  gift  of 
tongues.  This,  as  the  apostle  shows,  would  destroy  the  very 
idea  of  the  church. 

17.  If  the  whole  body  (were)  an  eye,  where  (were) 
the    hearing?      If   the  whole  (were)  hearing,  where 
(were)  the  smelling  ? 

The  obvious  meaning  of  this  verse  is,  that  the  very  exist 
ence  of  the  body  as  an  organization  depends  on  the  union  of 
members  endowed  with  different  functions.  And  the  applica 
tion  of  this  idea  to  the  church  is  equally  plain.  It  also  re 
quires  to  its  existence  a  diversity  of  gifts  and  offices.  If  all 
were  apostles  where  would  be  the  church  ? 

18.  But  now  hath  God  set  the  members  every  one 
of  them  in  the  body,  as  it  hath  pleased  him. 

JBut  now,  i.  e.  as  the  matter  actually  is.  Instead  of  the 
body  being  all  one  member,  God  has  arranged  and  disposed 
the  parts  each  in  its  place  so  as  to  constitute  one  living  or 
ganic  whole.  The  eye  did  not  give  itself  the  power  of  vision, 
nor  the  ear  its  ability  to  discriminate  sounds.  Each  member 
occupies  in  the  body  the  position  which  God  has  seen  fit  to 
assign  it,  and  which  is  most  conducive  to  the  good  of  the 
whole.  It  is  so  also  in  the  church ;  the  position  and  the  gifts 
of  every  member  are  determined  by  the  Lord.  One  has  one 
gift  and  another  another;  one  is  a  pastor  and  another  is 
a  missionary;  one  labours  in  a  city,  another  in  the  wilder 
ness,  not  according  to  their  relative  merits,  nor  in  virtue  of 
tjieir  own  selection,  but  as  God  wills  and  orders.  It  is  there 
fore  as  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  the  church  that  each 
member  should  decide  on  his  own  position  and  functions,  as 
that  the  members  of  the  body  should  arrange  themselves  ac 
cording  to  their  own  notions.  The  nature  of  the  church  sup- 


258        I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  18.19.20.21. 

poses,  that  as  in  the  body  the  principle  of  life  manifests  itself 
under  one  form  in  the  eye,  and  in  another  form  in  the  ear,  so 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in  the  church  manifests  himself  un 
der  one  form  in  one  member  and  under  a  different  form  in 
another ;  and  that  the  selection  of  his  organs  and  distribution 
of  his  gifts  are  according  to  his  sovereign  pleasure.  We 
are  contending  against  him,  therefore,  when  we  contend 
against  the  position  and  the  office  which  he  has  assigned  us  in 
the  church.  It  is  easy  to  give  this  principle  a  wider  applica 
tion.  One  is  born  in  Europe,  another  in  Asia ;  one  in  Ameri 
ca,  another  in  Africa ;  one  is  rich,  another  poor ;  one  has  ten 
talents,  another  one ;  not  because  one  is  better  than  the  other, 
but  simply  because  God  has  so  ordained.  His  will,  as  thus 
manifested,  is  not  only  sovereign  but  infinitely  wise  and  be 
nevolent.  It  is  on  this  diversity,  whether  in  the  world,  in  the 
church,  or  in  the  human  body,  that  the  life  and  the  good  of 
the  whole  depend.  This  verse  thus  contains  the  second  prac 
tical  inference  from  the  nature  of  the  church  as  the  body  of 
Christ.  The  place  and  gifts  of  each  member  are  determined 
by  the  Lord. 

19.  20.  And  if  they  were  all  one  member,  where 
(were)  the  body  ?  But  now  (are  they)  many  mem 
bers,  yet  but  one  body. 

These  verses  are  a  repetition  of  the  idea  that  diversity  of 
organs  in  the  body  is  essential  to  its  nature  as  a  body,  i.  e.  as 
an  organization ;  and  that  this  diversity  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  unity. 

21.  And  the  eye  cannot  say  unto  the  hand,  I  have 
no  need  of  thee :  nor  again  the  head  to  the  feet,  I  have 
no  need  of  you. 

The  third  inference  from  the  doctrine  taught  above,  is  the 
mutual  dependence  of  the  members  of  the  church.  As  in  the 
body  the  eye  cannot  dispense  with  the  hand,  nor  the  head 
with  the  feet,  so  in  the  church  the  most  highly  gifted  are  as 
much  dependent  on  those  less  favoured  as  the  latter  are  on 
the  former.  Every  thing  like  pride,  therefore,  is  as  much  out 
of  place  in  the  church  as  discontent. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  22.23.24.  259 

22.  23.  Nay,  much  more  those  members  of  the 
body,  which  seem  to  be  more  feeble,  are  necessary : 
and  those  (members)  of  the  body,  which  we  think  to 
be  less  honourable,  upon  these  we  bestow  more  abun 
dant  honour ;  and  our  uncomely  (parts)  have  more 
abundant  comeliness. 

The  fourth  inference  from  the  apostle's  doctrine  is,  that  the 
least  attractive  gifts  are  the  most  important.  As  in  the  hu 
man  frame  the  heart  is  more  important  than  the  tongue,  so 
in  the  church  the  gift  of  prayer  is  more  important  than  elo 
quence.  Those  who  in  the  closet,  however  obscure,  wrestle 
with  God,  often  do  more  for  his  glory  and  for  the  advance 
ment  of  his  kingdom  than  those  who  fill  the  largest  space  in 
the  public  eye.  What  would  the  tongue  do  without  the 
lungs,  which  are  neither  seen  nor  heard  ?  God's  thoughts  are 
not  as  our  thoughts.  The  childish  Corinthians  prized  the  gift 
of  tongues,  which,  as  they  used  it,  could  edify  no  one,  to  the 
gift  of  prophecy  by  which  the  whole  body  of  Christ  could  be 
instructed  and  comforted.  And  those  persons  and  offices  in 
the  church  which  are  most  admired  or  coveted,  are  often  of 
little  account  in  the  sight  of  God.  There  is  another  idea  pre 
sented  in  these  verses.  It  is  an  instinct  of  nature  to  adorn 
most  the  least  comely  portions  of  the  body ;  and  it  is  an  in 
stinct  of  grace  to  honour  most  those  members  of  the  church 
who  least  attract  admiration.  Those  members  of  the  body 
ivhich  we  think  to  be  less  honourable,  i.  e.  less  likely  to  be 
honoured ;  on  those  we  bestow  the  more  abundant  honour,  i.  e. 
we  on  that  account  honour  them  the  more.  It  is  thus  with  a 
mother.  The  child  which  is  the  least  admired,  she  cherishes 
with  special  affection.  And  it  is  thus  with  the  church.  The 
true  people  of  God  are  only  the  more  disposed  to  honour  those 
of  their  number  who  are  undervalued  or  despised.  In  the 
body,  as  the  apostle  says,  our  uncomely  parts  have  (i.  e.  they 
receive)  more  abundant  comeliness,  i.  e.  are  specially  adorned. 

24.  For  our  comely  (parts)  have  no  need :  but 
God  hath  tempered  the  body  together,  having  given 
more  abundant  honour  to  that  (part)  which  lacked : 

Our  comely  parts  have  no  need,  i.  e.  of  being  thus  adorned. 
The  face  is  uncovered ;  the  feet  are  clothed  and  decked.  The 


260         I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  24.25.26.27. 

former  needs  no  adorning,  the  latter  does.  God  hath  tem 
pered  the  body  together,  i.  e.  he  has  so  adjusted  it  and  com 
bined  its  several  members,  as  to  secure  the  result  that  more 
abundant  honour  should  be  given  to  those  which  lacked.  By 
making  the  uncomely  parts  essential  to  the  well-being  of  the 
rest,  and  by  diffusing  a  common  life  through  all  the  members, 
he  has  made  the  body  a  harmonious  whole. 

25.  26.  That  there  should  be  no  schism  in  the 
body ;  but  (that)  the  members  should  have  the  same 
care  one  for  another.  And  whether  one  member  suf 
fer,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it ;  or  one  member  be 
honoured,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it. 

God  has  so  constituted  the  body  that  there  should  be  no 
schism  in  it,  i.  e.  no  diversity  of  feeling  or  interest.  Schism, 
means  simply  division^  but  when  spoken  of  an  organized 
body,  or  of  a  society,  it  commonly  includes  the  idea  of  aliena 
tion  of  feeling.  Such  was  the  schism  which  existed  among 
the  Corinthians,  see  1, 10.  11, 18.  JBut  that  the  members 
should  have  the  same  care  one  for  another.  That  is,  that  one 
member  should  have  the  same  care  for  another  member  that 
it  has  for  itself.  The  body  is  so  constituted  that  the  eye  is  as 
solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  foot  as  it  is  for  its  own  well- 
being.  The  consequence  is  that  if  one  member  suffers  all  the 
members  suffer  with  it ;  and  if  one  member  be  honoured,  all 
the  members  rejoice  with  it.  This  is  the  law  of  our  physical 
nature.  The  body  is  really  one.  It  has  a  common  life  and 
consciousness.  The  pain  or  pleasure  of  one  part  is  common 
to  the  whole. 

27.  Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members 
in  particular. 

That  is,  collectively  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ ;  individual 
ly  or  severally,  ye  are  members.  This  is  the  application  of 
the  preceding  analogy  to  the  case  of  the  Corinthians.  What 
had  been  said  of  the  body,  of  its  unity ;  of  the  diversity  of  its 
members ;  of  their  mutual  dependence ;  of  the  greater  import 
ance  of  the  weaker  than  of  the  stronger  members ;  of  the  com 
munity  of  feeling  and  interest  that  pervades  the  whole ;  is  all 
true  in  its  application  to  the  church.  The  body  of  Christ  is 


I.  CORINTHIANS   12,  27.28.  261 

really  one,  pervaded  by  one  and  the  same  spirit ;  it  consists 
of  many  members  of  different  gifts  and  functions,  each  accord 
ing  to  the  will  of  the  Spirit ;  these  members  are  mutually  de 
pendent  ;  the  humble  and  obscure  are  more  necessary  to  the 
being  and  welfare  of  the  church  than  those  distinguished  by 
attractive  gifts ;  and  the  law  of  sympathy  pervades  the  whole, 
so  that  if  one  Christian  suffers  all  his  fellow  Christians  suffer 
with  him,  and  if  one  believer  is  honoured,  all  believers  rejoice 
with  him.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  Paul  is  not  speaking  of 
what  ought  to  be,  but  of  what  is.  He  does  not  say  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  one  member  of  the  human  body  to  care  for  another 
member,  but  that  it  does  thus  care.  Such  is  the  law  of  our  na 
ture.  The  want  of  this  sympathy  in  any  part  with  all  the  rest, 
would  prove  that  it  was  a  mere  excrescence  which  did  not  par 
take  of  the  common  life.  The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  the 
body  of  Christ.  It  is  not  merely  the  duty  of  one  Christian  to 
have  sympathy  with  another,  to  suffer  when  he  suffers,  and  to 
rejoice  when  he  is  honoured  ;  but  such  is  the  nature  of  their 
relation  that  it  must  be  so.  The  want  of  this  sympathy  with 
our  fellow  Christians,  no  matter  by  what  name  they  may  be 
called,  is  proof  that  we  do  not  belong  to  the  body  of  Christ. 
In  this,  as  in  all  other  respects,  Christians  are  imperfect.  The 
time  has  not  yet  come  when  every  believer  shall  have  the 
same  care  for  another  that  he  has  for  himself,  and  rejoice  in 
his  joy  and  grieve  in  his  sorrow  as  though  they  were  his  own. 
The  ideal  is  here  set  before  us,  and  blessed  are  those  who  ap 
proach  nearest  to  the  standard. 

28.  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first 
apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  after 
that  miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  govern 
ments,  diversities  of  tongues. 

In  Eph.  4,  11,  Paul  says,  "God  gave  some  apostles,  some 
prophets,"  &c.  He  began  here  to  use  the  same  form,  '  God 
nath  set  some  in  the  church,'  but  varies  the  construction,  and 
says,  First,  apostles.  This  verse  is  an  amplification  of  the  pre 
ceding  one.  In  v.  27  he  said  the  church  is  analogous  to  the 
human  body.  He  here  shows  that  the  analogy  consists  in  the 
common  life  of  the  church,  or  the  indwelling  Spirit  of  God, 
manifesting  itself  in  a  diversity  of  gifts  and  offices,  just  as  the 
common  life  oi  the  body  manifests  itself  in  different  organs 


262  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  28. 

and  members.  In  the  church  some  were  apostles,  i.  e,  imme 
diate  messengers  of  Christ,  rendered  infallible  as  teachers  and 
rulers  by  the  gift  of  plenary  inspiration.  Secondly,  prophets, 
i.  e.  men  who  spoke  for  God  as  the  occasional  organs  of  the 
Spirit.  Thirdly,  teachers,  i.  e.  uninspired  men  who  had  re 
ceived  the  gift  of  teaching.  Fourthly,  miracles  /  here  and  in 
what  follows  abstract  terms  are  used  for  concrete — miracles 
mean  men  endowed  with  the  power  of  working  miracles. 
Fifthly,  gifts  of  healing,  i.  e.  persons  endowed  with  the  power 
of  healing  diseases.  Sixthly,  helps,  i.  e.  persons  qualified  and 
appointed  to  help  the  other  officers  of  the  church,  probably  in 
the  care  of  the  poor  and  the  sick.  These,  according  to  the 
common  understanding  from  Chrysostom  to  the  present  day, 
were  deacons  and  deaconesses.  Seventhly,  governments,  i.  e. 
men  who  had  the  gift  and  authority  to  rule.  As  this  gift  and 
office  are  distinguished  from  those  of  teachers,  it  cannot  be 
understood  of  the  presbyters  or  bishops  who  were  required 
"  to  be  apt  to  teach."  It  seems  to  refer  clearly  to  a  class  of 
officers  distinct  from  teachers,  i.  e.  rulers,  or  as  they  are  called 
in  the  Reformed  churches,  "  ruling  elders,"  and  in  the  ancient 
church,  seniores  plebis.  Finally,  diversities  of  tongues,  i.  e. 
persons  having  the  gift  of  speaking  in  foreign  languages.  This 
is  put  last  probably  because  it  was  so  unduly  valued  and  so 
ostentatiously  displayed  by  the  Corinthians. 

On  this  enumeration  it  may  be  remarked,  first,  that  it  was 
not  intended  to  be  exhaustive.  Gifts  are  mentioned  in  vs. 
8-10,  and  elsewhere,  which  have  nothing  to  correspond  to 
them  here.  Secondly,  every  office  necessarily  supposes  the 
corresponding  gift.  No  man  could  be  an  apostle  without  the 
gift  of  infallibility ;  nor  a  prophet  without  the  gift  of  inspira 
tion;  nor  a  healer  of  diseases  without  the  gift  of  healing. 
Man  may  appoint  men  to  offices  for  which  they  have  not  the 
necessary  gifts,  but  God  never  does,  any  more  than  he  ordains 
the  foot  to  see  or  the  hand  to  hear.  If  any  man,  therefore, 
claims  to  be  an  apostle,  or  prophet,  or  worker  of  miracles, 
without  the  corresponding  gift,  he  is  a  false  pretender.  In 
the  early  church,  as  now,  there  were  many  false  apostles,  i.  e. 
those  who  claimed  the  honour  and  authority  of  the  office  with-' 
out  its  gifts.  Thirdly,  the  fact  that  any  office  existed  in  the! 
apostolic  church  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  intended  to  be  per  I 
manent.  In  that  age  there  was  a  plenitude  of  spiritual  mani 
festations  and  endowments  demanded  for  the  organization  and 
propagation  of  the  church,  which  is  no  longer  required.  We 


I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  28.29.30.  263 

have  no  longer  prophets,  nor  workers  of  miracles,  nor  gifts  of 
tongues.  The  only  evidence  that  an  office  was  intended  to  be 
permanent  is  the  continuance  of  the  gift  of  which  it  was  the 
organ,  and  the  command  to  appoint  to  the  office  those  who 
are  found  to  possess  the  gift.  The  only  evidence  that  God 
intended  the  eye  to  be  a  permanent  organ  of  the  body,  is,  that 
he  has  perpetuated  the  faculty  of  vision.  Had  the  gift  of 
sight  been  discontinued,  it  would  avail  little  that  men  should 
call  the  mouth  and  nose  eyes,  and  demand  that  they  should 
be  recognized  as  such.  This  is  precisely  what  Romanists  and 
others  do,  when  they  call  their  bishops  apostles,  and  require 
men  to  honour  and  obey  them  as  though  they  were.  Fourthly, 
the  only  evidence  of  a  call  to  an  office,  is  the  possession  of  the 
requisite  gifts.  If  a  man  received  the  gift  of  prophecy,  he 
was  thereby  called  to  be  a  prophet ;  or  if  he  received  the  gift 
of  healing,  he  was  thereby  called  to  exercise  that  gift.  So  if 
any  man  has  received  ministerial  gifts,  he  has  received  a  call 
to  the  ministry.  What  those  gifts  are  the  Bible  has  taught  us. 
They  are  such  as  these:  soundness  in  the  faith,  competent 
knowledge,  ability  to  teach,  the  love  of  Christ  and  zeal  for  his 
glory,  an  intelligent  conviction  of  an  obligation  to  preach  the 
gospel,  and  in  short  the  qualifications  which  are  necessary  in 
one  who  is  to  be  an  example  and  guide  of  the  flock  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  office  of  the  church  in  the  matter  is,  first  to  ex 
amine  whether  the  candidate  for  the  ministry  really  possesses 
ministerial  gifts ;  and  then,  if  satisfied  on  that  point,  authori 
tatively  to  declare  its  judgment  in  the  appointed  way.  The 
same  remarks  may  be  made  in  reference  to  a  call  to  the  mis 
sionary  work  or  to  any  other  department  of  labour  in  the 
church  of  Christ.  The  fundamental  idea  is  that  the  church  is 
the  body  of  Christ,  filled  by  his  Spirit,  and  that  the  Spirit  dis 
tributes  to  every  one  severally  as  he  wills,  the  gifts  which  he 
designs  him  to  exercise  for  the  edification  of  the  whole. 

29.30.  (Are)  all  apostles?  (are)  all  prophets? 
(are)  all  teachers  ?  (are)  all  workers  of  miracles  ? 
Have  all  the  gifts  of  healing?  do  all  speak  with 
tongues  ?  do  all  interpret  ? 

As  in  the  body  all  is  not  eye,  or  all  ear,  so  in  the  church 
all  have  not  the  same  gifts  and  offices.  And  as  it  would  be 
preposterous  in  all  the  members  of  the  body  to  aspire  to  the 


264  I.  CORINTHIANS  12,  29.30.31. 

same  office,  so  it  is  no  less  preposterous  in  the  members  of  the 
church  that  all  should  covet  the  same  gifts.  It  is  the  design 
of  the  apostle  to  suppress,  on  the  one  hand,  all  discontent  and 
envy,  and  on  the  other,  all  pride  and  arrogance.  God  distrib 
utes  his  gifts  as  he  pleases ;  all  are  necessary,  and  the  recipi 
ents  of  them  are  mutually  dependent. 

31.   But  covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts  :   and  yet 
shew  I  unto  you  a  more  excellent  way. 

All  cannot  have  every  gift,  but  covet  earnestly  the  better 
ones.  To  covet  (^\6w)  is  earnestly  to  desire,  with  the  impli 
cation  of  corresponding  effort  to  obtain.  The  extraordinary 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  bestowed  according  to  his  own  good 
pleasure.  But  so  also  are  his  saving  benefits.  Yet  both  may 
be,  and  should  be  sought  in  the  use  of  the  appointed  means. 
The  best  gifts ;  literally,  the  better  gifts,  by  which  is  meant, 
as  appears  from  14,  5,  those  which  were  the  more  useful.  The 
Corinthians  had  a  very  different  standard  of  excellence ;  and 
coveted  most  the  gifts  which  were  the  most  attractive,  although 
the  least  useful.  And  yet  (or,  moreover)  I  shew  you  an  excel 
lent  way.  The  expression  is  not  in  itself  comparative,  more 
excellent ;  but  simply  a  way  according  to  excellence,  i.  e.  an 
excellent  way.  Whether  it  is  excellent  compared  to  some 
thing  else,  or  most  excellent,  depends  on  the  context.  Here 
no  comparison  is  implied.  The  idea  is  not  that  he  intends  to 
show  them  a  way  that  is  better  than  seeking  gifts,  but^a  way 
par  excellence  to  obtain  those  gifts.  The  other  view  is  indeed 
adopted  by  Calvin  and  others,  but  it  supposes  the  preceding 
imperative  (covet  ye)  to  be  merely  concessive,  and  is  contrary 
to  14,  1,  where  the  command  to  seek  the  more  useful  gifts  is 
repeated.  The  sense  is,  '  Seek  the  better  gifts,  and  moreover 
I  show  you  an  excellent  way  to  do  it.' 


CHAPTER  XIIL 

Christian  Love.    Vs.  1-13. 

LOVE  is  superior  to  all  extraordinary  gifts.  It  is  better  than 
the  gift  of  tongues,  v.  1  ;  than  the  gifts  of  prophecy  and  know 
ledge,  v.  2  ;  and  than  the  gift  of  miracles,  v.  2.  All  outward 


I.  CORINTHIANS  13.  265 

works  of  charity  without  it  are  worthless,  v.  3.  Love  has  this 
superiority,  first,  because  of  its  inherent  excellence  ;  and  sec 
ondly,  because  of  its  perpetuity.  As  to  its  superior  excellence, 
it  implies  or  secures  all  other  excellence.  1.  It  includes  all 
the  forms  of  kindness.  2.  It  is  humble  and  modest.  3.  It  is 
unselfish.  4.  It  sympathizes  with  all  good,  vs.  4-7.  It  is  per 
petual — all  the  extraordinary  gifts  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
chapter  were  designed  for  the  present  state  of  existence,  or 
were  temporary.  Love  is  never  to  cease,  v.  8.  Knowledge, 
as  a  special  gift,  and  perhaps  also  in  the  form  in  which  it  ex 
ists  in  this  world,  is  to  pass  away.  It  is  now  the  apprehension 
of  truth  as  through  a  mirror — hereafter  it  will  be  lost  in  im 
mediate  vision,  vs.  9-12.  The  permanent  graces  are  faith, 
hope,  and  love,  and  the  greatest  of  these  is  Love,  v.  13. 

This  chapter,  although  devoted  to  a  single  Christian  grace, 
and  therefore  not  to  be  compared  with  the  eighth  chapter  of 
Romans,  or  with  some  chapters  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
as  an  unfolding  of  the  mysteries  of  redemption,  still  has  ever 
been  considered  as  one  of  the  jewels  of  Scripture.  For  moral 
elevation,  for  richness  and  comprehensiveness,  for  beauty  and 
felicity  of  expression,  it  has  been  the  admiration  of  the  church 
in  all  ages. — With  regard,  to  the  word  charity,  as  the  transla 
tion  of  the  Greek  aya^,  it  has  already  been  remarked  in  the 
comment  on  8,  1,  that  it  is  peculiarly  unhappy.  Neither  in 
its  primary  signification,  nor  in  the  sense  which  usage  has  at 
tached  to  it,  does  it  properly  answer  to  the  Greek  term.  The 
latter  occurs  about  one  hundred  and  sixteen  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  is  translated  love  in  all  places  except  twenty- 
three  ;  and  in  those  the  departure  from  the  common  usao-e  is 
altogether  arbitrary.  The  word  charity  is  just  as  inappropri 
ate  in  this  chapter  as  it  would  be  in  such  phrases  as,  "  the  Son 
of  his  charity,"  or,  "  the  charity  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our 
hearts,"  or,  "  the  charity  of  Christ."  The  Greek  word  dyaTn; 
is  not  of  heathen  origin.  The  heathen  had  no  conception  of 
the  grace  which  in  the  Scriptures  is  expressed  by  that  term  ; 
neither  Ipws  nor  <£iAi'a  answers  to  the  Scriptural  sense  of  dya?^ ; 
nor  do  the  Latin  words  amor  or  caritas.  It  was  the  unsuita- 
bleness  of  the  former  that  induced  Jerome  to  adopt  the  latter 
as  the  more  elevated  of  the  two.  The  one  properly  expresses 
love  founded  on  sympathy;  the  latter  came  to  mean  love 
founded  on  respect.  Its  English  derivative  (charity)  retains 
more  of  the  original  force  of  the  Latin  word.  Caritas  (from 
earns,  a  carendo,  dear,  i,  e.  costly)  is  properly  dearness  or 
12 


266  I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  1. 

costliness ;  and  then  it  came  to  express  the  feeling  arising 
from  the  sight  of  want  and  suffering.  And  this  is  the  com 
mon  ^meaning  still  attached  to  the  English  word,  which  ren 
ders  it  unsuitable  as  the  substitute  of  the  comprehensive  word 
love.  Many  have  been  led  to  think  that  almsgiving  covers  a 
multitude  of  sins,  because  charity  is  said  to  have  that  effect ; 
and  that  kindness  to  the  poor  and  the  sick  is  the  sum  of  all 
religion,  because  Paul  exalts  charity  above  faith  and  hope.  It 
is  not  of  charity,  but  of  love,  of  which  the  Bible  thus  speaks. 

Superiority  of  Love  to  all  other  gifts. 

1.  Though  I  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and  of 
angels,  and  have  not  charity,  I  am  become  (as)  sound 
ing  brass,  or  a  tinkling  cymbal. 

The  gift  of  tongues,  on  which  the  Corinthians  so  much 
valued  themselves,  is  mentioned  first,  because  it  was  the  prom 
inent  subject  in  this  whole  discussion.  The  tongues  of  men 
are  the  languages  which  men  speak.  As  this  is  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  expression,  it  serves  to  prove  that  the  gift 
of  tongues  was  the  gift  of  speaking  foreign  languages.  The 
tongues  of  angels  are  the  languages  which  angels  use.  A 
mode  of  expression  equivalent  to  'all  languages  human  or 
divine.'  Paul  means  to  say,  that  the  gift  of  tongues  in  its 
highest  conceivable  extent  without  love  is  nothing.  Without 
love  I  am  become,  i.  e.  the  mere  want  of  love  has  reduced  me, 
notwithstanding  the  gift  in  question,  to  a  level  with  sounding 
brass •  not  a  musical  instrument  made  of  brass,  which  has 
some  dignity  about  it,  but  to  a  piece  of  clattering  brass  which 
makes  a  senseless  noise ;  or,  at  least,  to  a  tinkling  cymbal,  the 
lowest  and  least  expressive  of  all  musical  instruments.  Tink 
ling  (dA.aA.a£ov),  properly  clanging,  expressive  of  the  loud 
shrill  noise  made  by  the  cymbal.  These  instruments  were  of 
two  kinds,  one  small,  worn  on  the  thumb  and  middle  finger, 
answering,  it  is  thought,  to  the  modern  castanets  /  the  other 
large,  broad  plates,  like  our  common  cymbals.  Joseph.  Ant. 
7.  12.  3.  Both  kinds  are  perhaps  referred  to  in  Ps.  150,  5, 
where  the  Septuagint  distinguishes  them  as  the  sweet-toned 
and  the  loud.  The  latter  is  the  kind  here  specified.  The 
illustration  was  probably  adopted  from  the  shrill,  discordant 
noise  made  by  the  speakers  with  their  tongues,  each  endeav 
ouring  to  drown  the  voice  of  all  the  others,  as  seems  from 


I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  1.2.  267 

what  follows  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  Corinthians.  Paul 
says,  14,  23,  the  meetings  for  worship  in  Corinth,  if  all  spoke 
with  tongues,  would  be  so  confused  as  to  make  strangers  think 
they  were  mad. 

2.  And  though  I  have  (the  gift  of)  prophecy,  and 
understand  all  mysteries,  and  all  knowledge;  and 
though  I  have  all  faith,  so  that  I  could  remove  moun 
tains,  and  have  not  charity,  I  am  nothing. 

There  are  three  gifts  here  referred  to,  prophecy,  "the 
word  of  knowledge,"  and  miracles.  'Though  I  have  the  gift 
of  prophecy,  so  as  to  understand  all  mysteries,  and  (though  I 
have)  all  knowledge,  and  all  faith,'  &c.  As  the  particle&eai/, 
though,  by  which  the  distinction  of  gifts  is  indicated  in  the 
context,  is  here  omitted,  the  first  two  clauses  are  commonly 
combined.  « Though  I  have  the  gift  of  prophecy,  so  as  to  un 
derstand  all  mysteries,  and  so  as  to  possess  all  knowledge.' 
There  are  two  objections  to  this.  The  passage  literally  reads, 
'  that  I  may  know  all  mysteries  and  all  knowledge  ; '  so  that 
tfcejrordfl  mysteries  and  knowledge  grammatically  depend  on 
(eiSoi),  I  may  know.  But  this  would  make  Paul  use  an  unex 
ampled  phrase,  c  to  know  knowledge.'  Something,  therefore, 
must  be  supplied,  and  it  is  as  natural  to  borrow  from  the  con 
text  the  words,  though  I  have,  as  simply,  that  I  may  have. 
And  secondly,  Paul  distinguishes  between  prophecy  and  know 
ledge  as  distinct  gifts,  v.  8  and  12,  8-10.  The  understanding 
or  apprehension  of  mysteries,  and  not  the  possession  of  know 
ledge,  in  its  distinctive  sense,  was  the  result  of  the  gift  of 
prophecy.  Mysteries  are  secrets,  things  undiscoverable  by 
human  reason,  which  divine  revelation  alone  can  make  known. 
And  the  gift  of  prophecy  was  the  gift  of  revelation  by  which 
such  mysteries  were  communicated  ;  see  14,  30.  All  myste 
ries,  therefore,  here  means,  all  the  secret  purposes  of  God 
relating  to  redemption.  This  limitation  is  required  by  the 
context.  Paul  intends  to  say,  that  though  he  was  the  recipi 
ent  of  all  the  revelations  which  God  ever  designed  to  make 
concerning  the  plan  of  salvation  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
without  love  he  would  be  nothing. 

And  all  knowledge,  \.  e.  and  though  I  have  all  knowledge 
By  knowledge  is  meant  the  intellectual  apprehension  or  cognil 
tion  of  revealed  truth.  It  was  the  prerogative  of  the  prophet 


268  I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  2.3. 

to  reveal,  of  the  teacher  to  know  and  to  instruct.  Compare 
14,  6,  where  Paul  connects  revelation  with  prophecy,  and 
knowledge  with  doctrine  or  teaching.  And  all  faith,  i.  e.  all 
degrees  of  the  faith  of  miracles,  so  that  the  greatest  wonders, 
such  as  removing  mountains,  could  be  thereby  accomplished. 
Compare  our  Lord's  language  in  Matt.  21,21.  I  am  nothing, 
i.  e.  worthless.  Neither  intellectual  gifts  nor  attainments,  nor 
power,  without  love,  are  of  any  real  value.  They  do  not  elevate 
the  character  or  render  it  worthy  of  respect  or  confidence. 
Satan  may  have,  and  doubtless  has,  more  of  intelligence  and 
power  than  any  man  ever  possessed,  and  yet  he  is  Satan  still. 
Those,  therefore,  who  seek  to  exalt  men  by  the  mere  cultiva 
tion  of  the  intellect,  are  striving  to  make  satans  of  them. 

3.  And  though  I  bestow  all  my  goods  to  feed  (the 
poor),  and  though  I  give  my  body  to  be  burned,  and 
have  not  charity,  it  profiteth  me  nothing. 

Paul  here  advances  one  step  further.  All  outward  acts  of 
beneficence  are  of  no  avail  without  love.  A  man  may  give 
away  his  whole  estate,  or  sacrifice  himself,  and  be  in  no  sense 
the  gainer.  He  may  do  all  this  from  vanity,  or  from  the  fear 
of  perdition,  or  to  purchase  heaven,  and  only  increase  his  con 
demnation.  Religion  is  no  such  easy  thing.  Men  would 
gladly  compound  by  external  acts  of  beneficence,  or  by  pen 
ances,  for  a  change  of  heart ;  but  the  thing  is  impossible. 
Thousands  indeed  are  deluded  on  this  point,  and  think  that 
they  can  substitute  what  is  outward  for  what  is  inward,  but 
God  requires  the  heart,  and  without  holiness  the  most  liberal 
giver  or  the  most  suffering  ascetic  can  never  see  God.  The 
original  word  (i/ao/xi'£to)  here  used,  literally  means,  to  feed  by 
morsels.  It  is  generally  followed  by  two  accusatives,  to  feed 
a  person  with  something.  Here  the  accusative  of  the  person 
is  omitted,  so  that  the  passage  stands,  c  Though  I  feed  out  my 
property,'  i.  e.  distribute  it  in  food.  And  though  I  give  my 
body  to  be  burned,  i.  e.  though  I  make  the  most  painful  sacri 
fice  of  myself.  A  man  may  not  only  give  his  property  but  his 
life,  and  be  nothing  the  better.  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
apostle  refers  to  martyrdom,  or  that  the  idea  is,  that  a  man 
may,  from  wrong  motives,  submit  to  be  a  martyr.  The  con 
text  requires  that  the  reference  should  be  to  a  sacrifice  made 
for  the  good  of  others.  Some  suppose  that  the  reference  is  to 
the  branding  of  slaves  to  indicate  their  ownership.  The 


I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  3.4.  269 

meaning  would  then  be,  '  Though  I  not  only  give  away  all  my 
goods,  but  should  sell  myself  as  a  slave  for  the  sake  of  the 
poor,  it  would  profit  me  nothing.'  Had  Paul  intended  to  say 
this,  he  would  probably  have  used  the  appropriate  term  for 
branding.  We  do  not  express  the  idea  that  an  animal  was 
branded,  by  saying  it  was  burnt.  There  is  no  necessity  for 
departing  from  the  simple  sense  of  the  words.  4  Though  I 
give  my  body  to  be  burnt  for  others,  i.  e.  though  I  should  die 
for  them,  without  love  it  profiteth  me  nothing.' 

4.  Charity  suffereth  long,  (and)  is  kind ;  charity  en- 
vieth  not ;  charity  vaunteth  not  itself,  is  not  puffed  up, 

Almost  all  the  instructions  of  the  New  Testament  are  sug 
gested  by  some  occasion,  and  are  adapted  to  it.  We  have 
not  in  this  chapter  a  methodical  dissertation  on  Christian  love, 
but  an  exhibition  of  that  grace  as  contrasted  with  extraordi 
nary  gifts  which  the  Corinthians  inordinately  valued.  Those 
traits  of  love  are  therefore  adduced  which  stood  opposed  to 
the  temper  which  they  exhibited  in  the  use  of  their  gifts. 
They  were  impatient,  discontented,  envious,  inflated,  selfish, 
indecorous,  unmindful  of  the  feelings  or  interests  of  others, 
suspicious,  resentful,  censorious.  The  apostle  personifies  love, 
and  places  her  before  them  and  enumerates  her  graces,  not  in 
logical  order,  but  as  they  occurred  to  him  in  contrast  to  the 
deformities  of  character  which  they  exhibited. 

Love  suffereth  long,  i.  e.  is  long-minded,  or  slow  to  be 
roused  to  resentment.  It  patiently  bears  with  provocation, 
and  is  not  quick  to  assert  its  rights  or  resent  an  injury.  It  is 
kind,  i.  e.  is  inclined  to  perform  good  offices  ;  is  good-natured. 
The  root  of  the  verb  (XP^TOS,  from  x/mo/xai)  means  useful,  and 
hence  its  primary  sense  is,  disposed  to  be  useful.  The  excel 
lence  here  indicated  is  the  positive  side  of  that  already  men 
tioned.  Love  is  not  quick  to  resent  evil,  but  is  disposed  to  do 
good.  It  envieth  not.  The  word  (£17X000)  here  used  may  ex 
press  any  wrong  feeling  excited  in  view  of  the  good  of  others ; 
not  only  envy,  but  hatred,  emulation,  and  the  like.  It  vaunt 
eth  not  itself  (TrepTrepeuerat),  this  includes  all  forms  of  the  desire 
to  gain  the  applause  of  others.  Love  does  not  seek  to  win 
admiration  and  applause.  Is  not  puffed  up,  i.  e.  conceited. 
This  is  the  root  of  the  preceding.  The  man  who  has  a  high 
conceit  of  himself  is  apt  to  be  boastful  and  desirous  of  praise. 
Love,  on  the  other  hand,  is  modest  and  humble ;  modest  be 
cause  humble. 


270  I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  5.  6.  7. 

5.  Doth  not  behave  itself  unseemly,  seeketh  not 
her  own,  is  not  easily  provoked,  thinketh  no  evil ; 

Doth  not  behave  itself  unseemly,  i.  e.  does  nothing  of 
which  one  ought  to  be  ashamed.  Its  whole  deportment  is 
decorous  and  becoming.  Seeketh  not  her  own ;  is  disinterested, 
10,  33.  Is  not  easily  provoked,  i.  e.  is  not  quick  tempered  ; 
or,  does  not  suffer  itself  to  be  roused  to  resentment.  And, 
therefore,  it  thinketh  no  evil,  or  rather,  it  does  not  think  evil. 
This  may  mean,  1.  It  does  not  plan  or  devise  evil.  But  the 
expression  is  (TO  KO.KOV)  the  evil,  and  not  (KO.KO)  evil.  Comp. 
Matt.  9,  4.  2.  It  does  not  impute  evil,  i.  e.  attribute  evil  mo 
tives  to  others,  or  is  not  suspicious.  The  sense  is  good  in 
itself,  but  not  so  suitable  to  the  connection  as,  3.  It  does  not 
lay  the  evil  which  it  suffers  to  the  charge  of  the  wrong-doer. 
Instead  of  being  resentful,  it  is  forgiving. 

6.  Rejoieeth  not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the 
truth ; 

The  general  sentiment  of  this  verse  is,  that  love  does  not 
sympathize  with  evil,  but  with  good.  It  rejoiceth  not  in 
iniquity,  i.  e.  in  any  thing  which  is  not  conformed  to  the 
standard  of  right.  The  word  is  usually  translated  unright 
eousness  ;  but  this  is  not  to  be  limited  to  injustice,  but  in 
cludes  all  forms  of  moral  evil.  Truth  is  often  used  antitheti 
cally  in  Scripture  to  unrighteousness,  as  it  is  here.  Rom. 
1,  8.  comp.  John  3,  21.  1  John  1,  6,  and  other  passages,  in 
which  men  are  said  to  do  the  truth.  Hence  it  is  commonly 
interpreted  in  such  cases  as  meaning  righteousness.  c  Love 
does  not  rejoice  in  unrighteousness,  but  it  rejoices  together 
with  (a-vyxaipfi)  righteousness,'  i.  e.  sympathizes  with  it,  and 
has  a  common  j  oy  with  it.  As,  however,  the  word  so  commonly 
in  Paul's  epistles  stands  for  religious  truth  as  revealed  in  the 
gospel,  perhaps  the  majority  of  commentators  so  understand 
it  here.  'Love  rejoices  together  with  the  truth.'  This,  how • 
ever,  not  only  destroys  the  antithesis,  but  introduces  a  disturb 
ing  element  into  the  description ;  for  it  is  of  love  as  a  virtue 
of  which  Paul  is  speaking.  Its  sympathy  with  the  gospel, 
therefore,  does  not  seem  to  be  appropriate  in  this  connection. 

7.  Beareth  all  things,  believeth  all  things,  hopeth 
all  things,  endureth  all  things. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  7.8.  271 

Beareth  oil  things.  This  may  either  mean,  bears  in  silence 
all  annoyances  and  troubles,  or  covers  up  all  things  (as  o-reyoo 
may  have  either  meaning),  in  the  sense  of  concealing  or  ex 
cusing  the  faults  of  others,  instead  of  gladly  disclosing  them. 
The  latter  interpretation  harmonizes  better  with  what  follows, 
but  it  is  contrary  to  Paul's  usage  as  to  this  word.  See  9,  12. 
1  Thess.  3,  1.  5.  With  him  the  word  always  means  to  bear 
patiently.  Further,  love  believes  all  things,  is  not  suspicious, 
but  readily  credits  what  men  say  in  their  own  defence.  Hopeth 
all  things,  i.  e.  hopes  for  the  best  with  regard  to  all  men.  It 
would  be  contrary  to  the  context  to  understand  the  faith  and 
hope  here  spoken  of  as  referring  to  the  truths  and  promises 
of  the  gospel.  Endureth  all  things.  The  word  (v7ro/x,evw)  is 
properly  a  military  word,  and  means  to  sustain  the  assault  of 
an  enemy.  Hence  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  express 
the  idea  of  sustaining  the  assaults  of  suffering  or  persecution, 
in  the  sense  of  bearing  up  under  them,  and  enduring  them  pa 
tiently.  2  Tim.  2,  10.  Heb.  10,  32.  12,  2.  This  clause,  there 
fore,  differs  from  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  ;  as  that 
had  reference  to  annoyances  and  troubles,  this  to  suffering 
and  persecutions. 

8.  Charity  never  faileth :  but  whether  (there  be) 
prophecies,  they  shall  fail ;  whether  (there  be)  tongues, 
they  shall  cease ;  whether  (there  be)  knowledge,  it  shall 
vanish  away. 

Love  never  fails,  i.  e.  it  endures  for  ever.  It  is  not  designed 
and  adapted,  as  are  the  gifts  under  consideration,  merely  to 
the  present  state  of  existence,  but  to  our  future  and  immortal 
state  of  being.  Whether  there  be  prophecies,  or  be  it  prophe 
cies,  they  shall  fail,  i.  e.  be  done  away  with.  The  gift  shall 
cease  to  be  necessary,  and  therefore  shall  not  be  continued. 
.Be  it  tongues,  &c.,  i.  e.  the  gift  of  tongues  shall  cease.  Be  it 
knowledge,  it  shall  vanish  away,  i.  e.  cease  to  exist.  It  is  the 
same  word  as  that  used  above  in  reference  to  prophecies.  It 
is  not  knowledge  in  the  comprehensive  sense  of  the  term  that 
is  to  cease,  but  knowledge  as  a  gift ;  as  one  of  the  list  of  ex 
traordinary  endowments  mentioned  above,  12,  8-11.  Know 
ledge,  considered  as  the  intellectual  apprehension  of  truth,  is, 
as  the  apostle  immediately  states,  hereafter  to  be  rendered 
perfect.  But  the  Xdyos  yvoxrews,  the  word  of  knowledge,  12,  8, 


272  I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  8.9.10.11. 

i.  c.  knowledge  in  that  form  in  which  it  was  the  foundation  of 
the  office  of  teacher,  is  to  be  done  away  with.  Whether  this 
means  that  hereafter  there  will  be  no  need  of  the  office  of 
teacher,  and  therefore  that  the  gift  which  qualified  for  that 
office  shall  cease ;  or  whether  Paul  means  to  say  that  the  im 
mediate  vision  of  truth  is  to  be  hereafter  so  different  from  our 
present  discursive,  obscure,  and  imperfect  mode  of  cognition, 
that  it  deserves  to  be  called  by  a  different  name,  may  be  mat 
ter  of  doubt.  Both  are  probably  true.  There  will  be  no  ig 
norance  in  heaven  to  be  removed  through  the  intervention  of 
human  instructors ;  and  there  will  probably  be  as  great  a  dif 
ference  between  knowledge  hereafter  and  what  we  call  know 
ledge  here,  as  there  is  between  hearing  of  an  object  and  seeing 
it.  We  may  hear  a  description  of  a  person  or  place  and  have 
thereby  a  certain  form  of  knowledge  of  him  or  it ;  bnt  that 
form  passes  away,  or  is  merged  in  a  higher,  as  soon  as  we  see 
what  we  had  before  only  heard  about. 

9.  10.  For  we  know  in  part,  and  we  prophesy  in 
part.  But  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come,  then 
that  which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away. 

This  is  the  reason  why  knowledge  and  prophecy  are  to 
cease.  They  are  partial  or  imperfect,  and  therefore  suited 
only  to  an  imperfect  state  of  existence.  The  revelations  grant 
ed  to  the  prophets  imparted  mere  glimpses  of  the  mysteries 
of  God  ;  when  those  mysteries  stand  disclosed  in  the  full  light 
of  heaven,  what  need  then  of  those  glimpses?  A  skilful 
teacher  may  by  diagrams  and  models  give  us  some  knowledge 
of  the  mechanism  of  the  universe  ;  but  if  the  eye  be  strength 
ened  to  take  in  the  whole  at  a  glance,  what  need  then  of  a 
planetarium  or  of  a  teacher  ?  The  apostle  employs  two  illus 
trations  to  teach  us  the  difference  between  the  present  and 
the  future.  The  one  is  derived  from  the  difference  between 
childhood  and  maturity;  the  other  from  the  difference  be 
tween  seeing  a  thing  by  imperfect  reflection,  or  through  an 
obscure  medium,  and  seeing  it  directly. 

11.  When  I  was  a  child,  I  spake  as  a  child,  I  un 
derstood  as  a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child  :  but  when  I 
became  a  man,  I  put  away  childish  things. 

When  I  was  a  child;  not  an  infant,  but  as  opposed  to  one 


I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  11.12.  273 

of  mature  age,  a  child.  I  spake  as  a  child.  This  does  not 
refer  to  the  gift  of  tongues  as  something  childish,  but  simply 
to  the  mode  of  speaking  characteristic  of  children.  I  under 
stood  as  a  child,  rather,  I  felt  and  acted  as  a  child ;  otherwise 
too  little  distinction  is  made  between  this  and  the  next  clause. 
I  thought  as  a  child.  My  language,  feelings  and  thoughts 
were  all  childish.  The  words  (</>/3ovew  and  A.oyi£o/x,ai),  however, 
are  so  comprehensive  that  the  two  clauses  may  be  rendered, 
4 1  had  the  opinions  of  a  child  and  I  reasoned  as  a  child.'  The. 
former  word,  however,  is  so  often  used  to  express  feeling, 
Matt.  16,  23.  Rom.  8,  5.  Phil.  3,  19.  Col.  3,  2,  that  the  first 
mentioned  interpretation  is  to  be  preferred.  When  I  became 
a  man,  or  having  become  a  man,  I  have  put  away  childish 
things,  i.  e.  my  former  childish  mode  of  speaking,  feeling  and 
thinking.  The  feelings  and  thoughts  of  a  child  are  true  and 
just,  in  so  far  as  they  are  the  natural  impression  of  the  objects 
to  which  they  relate.  They  are  neither  irrational  nor  false,  but 
inadequate.  The  impression  which  the  sight  of  the  heavens 
makes  on  the  mind  of  the  child,  is  for  the  child  a  just  and  true 
impression.  The  conception  which  it  forms  of  what  it  sees  is 
correct  in  one  aspect  of  the  great  object  contemplated.  Yet 
that  impression  is  very  different  from  that  which  is  made  on 
the  mind  of  the  astronomer.  In  like  manner  our  views  of 
divine  things  will  hereafter  be  very  different  from  those  which 
we  now  have.  But  it  does  not  thence  follow  that  our  present 
views  are  false.  They  are  just  as  far  as  they  go,  they  are  only 
inadequate.  It  is  no  part  of  the  apostle's  object  to  unsettle 
our  confidence  in  what  God  now  communicates  by  his  word 
and  Spirit  to  his  children,  but  simply  to  prevent  our  being 
satisfied  with  the  partial  and  imperfect. 

12.  For  now  we  see  through  a  glass,  darkly  ;  but 
then  face  to  face  :  now  I  know  in  part ;  but  then  shall 
I  know  even  as  also  I  am  known. 

This  is  a  confirmation  of  what  precedes.  Our  present 
knowledge  is  imperfect,  for  we  now  see  through  a  glass. 
These  words  admit  of  three  interpretations.  1.  The  preposi 
tion  (Sia)  may  have  its  ordinary  instrumental  sense,  we  see  by 
means  of  a  glass ;  or,  2.  It  may  have  its  local  sense,  through. 
Then,  assuming  glass  (eVoTrrpoi/)  to  mean  a  window,  the  mean 
ing  is,  we  see  as  through  a  window ;  and  as  the  windows 
were  commonly  made  of  mica,  and  therefore  imperfectly 
12* 


274  I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  12.  13. 

transparent,  to  see  through  a  window  was  to  see  dimly.  As 
the  word,  however,  properly  means  a  mirror,  James  1,  23, 
the  best  interpretation  probably  is,  3.  We  see  as  through  a 
mirror;  the  optical  impression  is  that  the  object  is  behind  the 
mirror,  and  the  spectator  seems  to  look  through  it.  The 
ancient  mirrors  were  of  imperfectly  polished  metal,  and  the 
reflection  which  they  gave  was  very  obscure.  Darkly,  literal 
ly,  in  an  enigma.  This  may  be  taken  adverbially,  as  by  our 
translators,  we  see  enigmatically,  i.  e.  obscurely ;  or  the  idea 
may  be  that  we  see  divine  things  as  it  were  wrapped  up  in 
enigmas.  We  do  not  see  the  things  themselves,  but  those 
things  as  set  forth  in  symbols  and  words  which  imperfectly 
express  them.  The  reference  seems  to  be  to  Num.  12,  8. 
Of  an  ordinary  prophet  God  said,  "  I  will  make  myself  known 
unto  him  in  a  vision,  and  speak  to  him  in  a  dream  ; "  but  of 
Moses  he  says,  "  With  him  will  I  speak  mouth  to  mouth,  even 
apparently,  and  not  in  dark  sayings,"  i.  e.  in  enigmas.  (The 
Septuagint  version  is  BL  atwy/xcmoi').  The  clearest  revelation 
of  the  things  of  God  in  words  is  as  an  enigma,  when  compared 
to  sight.  Every  thing  is  comparative.  The  revelations  made 
to  Moses  were  clear  in  comparison  to  the  communications 
made  to  others  by  visions  and  dreams.  Paul  says  the  writings 
of  Moses  were  enigmas  compared  to  the  revelations  contained 
in  the  gospel,  2  Cor.  3,  12. 13.  And  the  gospel  itself  is  ob 
scure  compared  to  the  lucid  medium  through  which  we  shall 
see  hereafter.  But  then  face  to  face,  i.  e.  no  longer  through 
a  mirror,  but  immediately.  Comp.  Gen.  32,  31.  Num.  12,  8. 
The  word  of  God  is  a  mirror  wherein  even  now  we  behold  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  (2  Cor.  3,  18),  but  what  is  that  to  seeing 
him  face  to  face ! 

Now  I  know  in  part  (imperfectly),  but  then  shall  I  know 
even  as  I  am  known,  i.e.  perfectly.  As  we  are  required  to 
be  perfect  as  our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect,  Matt.  5,  48,  so 
we  may  be  said  to  know  even  as  we  are  known.  We  may  be 
perfect  in  our  narrow  sphere,  as  God  is  perfect  in  his ;  and  yet 
the  distance  between  him  and  us  remain  infinite.  What  Paul 
wishes  to  impress  upon  the  Corinthians  is,  that  the  gifts  in 
which  they  so  much  prided  themselves,  were  small  matters 
compared  to  what  is  in  reserve  for  the  people  of  God. 

13.  And  now  abideth  faith,  hope,  charity,  these 
three ;  but  the  greatest  of  these  (is)  charity. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  13.  275 

The  words  and  now  may  either  indicate  time,  now,  during 
the  present  state ;  or  they  may  be  inferential,  now,  i.  e.  since 
things  are  so,  rebus  sic  stantibus.  In  the  latter  case,  the 
sense  is,  '  Since  these  extraordinary  gifts  are  to  pass  away, 
faith,  hope,  and  love  abide.'  The  former  are  temporary,  the 
latter  are  permanent.  The  only  objection  to  this  interpreta 
tion  arises  from  the  apostle's  speaking  of  faith  and  hope  abid 
ing  in  a  future  state,  whereas  elsewhere,  Rom.  8,  24.  2  Cor.  5, 
7,  and  Heb.  11,  1,  faith  and  hope  seem  to  be  represented  as 
pertaining  only  to  our  present  state  of  existence,  and  as  being 
hereafter  merged,  the  one  in  sight,  and  the  other  in  fruition. 
This  apparent  inconsistency  arises  from  the  comprehensiveness 
of  the  terms.  The  state  of  mind  indicated  by  faith  and  hope 
as  now  exercised,  will  not  continue  in  the  future  life ;  but  the 
state  of  mind,  so  to  speak,  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  may  be  de 
signated  by  these  same  terms,  because  confidence  and  expecta 
tion  will  continue  for  ever.  Faith  in  one  form,  ceases  when 
merged  in  sight ;  but  in  another  form  it  continues ;  and  the 
same  is  true  of  hope.  Or  perhaps  the  same  idea  may  be  more 
correctly  expressed  by  saying  that  some  exercises  of  faith  and 
hope  are  peculiar  to  the  present  state,  while  others  will  never 
cease.  Certain  it  is  that  there  will  always  be  room  even  in 
heaven  for  confidence  in  God,  and  for  hope  of  the  ever  ad 
vancing  and  enlarging  blessedness  of  the  redeemed. 

If,  however,  (i/wl  Se),  but  now,  be  taken,  as  is  commonly 
done,  as  relating  to  time,  the  meaning  is,  '  ISTow,  i.  c.  so  long 
as  we  continue  in  this  world,  there  remain  faith,  hope  and 
love.'  These  are  the  three  great  permanent  Christian  graces, 
as  opposed  to  the  mere  temporary  gifts  of  prophecy,  miracles, 
and  tongues.  But  this  does  not  seem  to  be  consistent  with 
what  precedes.  The  contrast  is  not  between  the  more  or  less 
permanent  gifts  pertaining  to  our  present  state  ;  but  between 
what  belongs  exclusively  to  the  present,  and  what  is  to  con 
tinue  for  ever.  In  v.  8  it  is  said  of  love,  as  a  ground  or  reason 
of  its  pre-eminence,  that  it  never  fails;  and  here  the  same 
idea  is  expressed  by  saying,  it  abides.  4  To  abide,'  therefore, 
must  mean,  that  it  continues  for  ever.  The  same  permanence 
is  attributed  to  faith,  hope,  and  love.  They  are  all  contrasted 
with  the  temporary  gifts,  and  they  are  all  said  to  abide.  The 
one  is  to  continue  as  long  as  the  others.  The  former  interpre 
tation  is,  therefore,  to  be  preferred. 

Tlie  greatest  of  these  is  love.  In  what  sense  is  love  greater 
than  faith  ?  Some  say,  because  it  includes,  or  is  the  root  of 


276  I.  CORINTHIANS  13,  13. 

faith  and  hope.  It  is  said  that  we  believe  those  whom  we 
love,  and  hope  for  what  we  delight  in.  According  to  Scrip 
ture,  however,  the  reverse  is  true.  Faith  is  the  root  of  love. 
It  is  the  believing  apprehension  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the 
face  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  calls  forth  love  to  him.  Others  say, 
the  ground  of  superiority  is  in  their  effects.  But  we  are  said 
to  be  sanctified,  to  be  made  the  children  of  God,  to  overcome 
the  world,  to  be  saved,  by  faith.  Christ  dwells  in  our  hearts 
by  faith ;  he  that  believes  hath  eternal  life,  i.  e.  faith  as  inclu 
ding  knowledge,  is  eternal  life.  There  are  no  higher  effects 
than  these  so  far  as  we  are  concerned.  Others  say  that  love 
is  superior  to  faith  and  hope,  because  the  latter  belong  to  the( 
present  state  only,  and  love  is  to  continue  for  ever.  But,  ac 
cording  to  the  true  interpretation  of  the  verse,  all  these  graces 
are  declared  to  abide.  The  true  explanation  is  to  be  found  in 
the  use  which  Paul  makes  of  this  word  greater,  or  the  equiva 
lent  term  better.  In  12,  31,  he  exhorts  his  readers  to  seek 
the  better  gifts,  i.  e.  the  more  useful  ones.  And  in  14,  5,  he 
says,  c  Greater  is  he  that  prophesies,  than  he  that  speaks  with 
tongues ; '  i.  e.  he  is  more  useful.  Throughout  that  chapter 
the  ground  of  preference  of  one  gift  to  others  is  made  to  con 
sist  in  its  superior  usefulness.  This  is  Paul's  standard ;  and 
judged  by  this  rule,  love  is  greater  than  either  faith  or  hope. 
Faith  saves  ourselves,  but  love  benefits  others. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


Superiority  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  to  that  of  tongues,  vs.  1-25.     Special 
directions  for  the  conduct  of  public  worship,  vs.  26-40. 

Superiority  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  to  that  of  tongues.  Vs.  1-25. 

THE  superiority  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  to  that  of  tongues  is 
founded,  1.  On  the  consideration  that  he  who  speaks  with 
tongues  speaks  to  God,  whereas,  he  who  prophesies,  speaks  to 
men,  vs.  2.  3.  2.  That  he  who  speaks  with  tongues  edifies 
only  himself,  whereas,  he  who  prophesies  edifies  the  church, 
vs.  4.  5.  That  this  must  be  so,  is  proved,  1.  By  an  appeal  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14.  277 

their  own  judgment  and  experience.  If  Paul  came  to  them 
speaking  in  a  way  which  they  could  not  understand,  what 
gocd  could  it  do  them  ?  But  if,  as  a  prophet,  he  brought 
them  a  revelation  from  God,  or  as  a  teacher,  set  before  them 
a  doctrine,  they  would  be  edified,  v.  6.  2.  From  the  analogy 
of  musical  instruments.  It  is  only  when  the  sounds  are  un 
derstood,  that  they  produce  the  desired  effect.  If  a  man  does 
not  know  that  a  given  note  of  the  trumpet  is  a  signal  for  bat 
tle,  he  will  not  prepare  himself  for  the  conflict,  vs.  7-9. 
3.  From  their  experience  in  intercourse  with  strangers.  If 
a  man  comes  to  me  speaking  a  language  which  I  cannot  un 
derstand,  no  matter  how  polished  or  significant  that  language 
may  be,  he  is  a  barbarian  to  me,  and  I  to  him,  vs.  10.  11.  In 
their  zeal,  therefore,  for  spiritual  gifts,  they  should  have  re 
gard  to  the  edification  of  the  church,  v.  12.  Hence,  he  who 
had  the  gift  of  tongues  should  pray  for  the  gift  of  interpreta 
tion  ;  as  without  the  latter  gift,  however  devotional  he  might 
be,  his  prayers  could  not  profit  others,  vs.  13.  14.  It  was  not 
enough  that  the  prayers  and  praises  should  be  spiritual,  they 
must  be  intelligible ;  otherwise  those  who  were  unlearned  could 
not  join  in  them,  vs.  15-17.  For  himself,  the  apostle  says,  al 
though  more  richly  endowed  with  the  gift  of  tongues  than  any 
of  his  readers,  he  would  rather  speak  five  words  so  as  to  be 
•understood,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an  unknown  tongue, 
vs.  18.  19.  It  was  mere  childishness  in  the  Corinthians  to  be 
so  delighted  with  a  gift  which  they  could  not  turn  to  any 
practical  account,  v.  20.  They  should  learn  wisdom  from  the 
experience  of  the  Hebrews.  It  was  as  a  judgment  that  God 
sent  among  them  teachers  whom  they  could  not  understand. 
So  long  as  they  were  obedient,  or  there  was  hope  of  bringing 
them  to  repentance,  he  sent  them  prophets  speaking  their  own 
language,  vs.  21.  22.  Their  experience  would  not  be  dissimi 
lar.  If  they  came  together,  each  speaking  in  an  unknown 
tongue,  the  effect  would  be  only  evil.  But  if,  when  they  as 
sembled,  all  the  speakers  spoke  so  as  to  be  understood,  and 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  then  men  would  be  con 
vinced  and  converted,  and  God  glorified,  vs.  23-25. 

In  the  comment  on  12,  10,  reasons  have  already  been  pre 
sented  for  adhering  to  the  common  view,  that  the  gift  of 
tongues,  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  was  the  gift  miracu 
lously  conferred,  of  speaking  in  foreign  languages.  Every 
one  must  feel,  however,  the  ti  nth  of  the  remark  of  Chrysos- 
tom  in  his  commentary  on  this  chapter :  "  This  whole  pas- 


278  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  1. 

sage  is  very  obscure ;  but  the  obscurity  arises  from  our  igno 
rance  of  the  facts  described,  which,  though  familiar  to  those 
to  whom  the  apostle  wrote,  have  ceased  to  occur."  That  this 
gift  should  be  specially  connected  with  prophesying,  as  in 
Acts  19,  6,  "they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied,"  and 
elsewhere,  is  to  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  all  speaking 
under  divine,  supernatural  influence,  was  included  under  the 
head  of  prophesying;  and  as  all  who  spake  with  tongues 
"  spake  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance,"  in  the  wide  sense 
of  the  word  they  all  prophesied.  But  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
understand  why  this  gift  should  have  been  so  common,  nor 
why  it  should  so  often  attend  on  conversion;  see  Acts  10,  46. 
19,  6.  There  are  many  things  also  in  this  chapter  which  it  is 
not  easy  to  understand  on  any  theory  of  the  nature  of  the 
gift.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  necessary  to  hold  fast 
what  is  clear,  and  to  make  the  certain  our  guide  in  explaining 
what  is  obscure.  It  is  clear,  1.  That  the  word  tongues  in  this 
connection,  as  already  proved,  means  languages.  2.  That  the 
speaker  with  tongues  was  in  a  state  of  calm  self-control.  He 
could  speak,  or  be  silent,  14,  28.  3.  That  what  he  said  was 
intelligible  to  himself,  and  could  be  interpreted  to  others. 
4.  That  the  unintelligibleness  of  what  was  said,  arose  not  from 
the  sounds  uttered  being  inarticulate,  but  from  the  ignorance 
of  the  hearer.  The  interpretation  of  particular  passages  must, 
therefore,  be  controlled  by  these  facts. 

1.  Follow  after  charity,  and  desire  spiritual  (gifts), 
but  rather  that  ye  may  prophesy. 

In  the  preceding  chapters  Paul  had  taught,  1.  That  all  the 
extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  proper  objects  of  desire. 
2.  That  they  were  of  different  relative  importance.  3.  That 
love  was  of  greater  value  than  any  gift.  In  accordance  with 
these  principles,  the  apostle  exhorts  his  readers  to  follow  after 
love  ;  i.  e.  to  press  forward  towards  it,  as  men  do  towards  the 
goal  in  a  race,  Phil.  3,  12. 14.  Pursue  it  earnestly  as  the  great 
est  good.  But  at  the  same  time,  desire  spiritual  gifts.  Be 
cause  love  is  more  important  than  miraculous  gifts,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  latter  were  not  to  be  sought.  The  same  word 
is  used  here  as  in  12,  31.  IB  at  rather  that  ye  may  prophesy. 
The  two  gifts  specially  in  the  apostle's  mind  were  the  gift  of 
speaking  with  tongues,  and  that  of  prophecy,  i.  e.  the  gift  of 
speaking  as  the  organ  of  the  Spirit  in  a  manner  adapted  to  in- 


I.  CORINTHIANS   14,  1.2.  279 

struct  and  edify  the  hearer.  Of  these  two  gifts,  he  says,  the 
latter  is  to  be  preferred.  The  reason  for  this  preference  is 
given  in  what  follows. 

2.  For  he  that  speaketh  in  an  (unknown)  tongue 
speaketh  not  unto  men,  but  unto  God :  for  no  man 
understandeth  (him)  ;  howbeit  in  the  spirit  he  speak 
eth  mysteries. 

What  is  here  taught  is,  First,  that  he  who  speaks  with 
tongues  speaks  not  to  men,  but  to  God.  Second,  that  this 
means  that  men  do  not  understand  him.  Thirdly,  that  the  rea 
son  of  his  not  being  understood  is  in  the  medium  of  communi 
cation,  not  in  the  things  communicated.  Speaketh  not  unto 
men,  but  unto  God ;  or,  speaks  not  for  men,  but  for  God. 
Sibi  canit  et  musis,  according  to  the  Latin  proverb.  CALVEST. 
His  communion  is  with  God,  and  not  with  man.  For  no  man 
understandeth  him.  Literally,  no  man  hears,  i.  e.  hears  any 
articulate  sounds.  He  hears  the  sound,  but  does  not  distin 
guish  the  words.  This,  however,  does  not  imply  that  the 
sounds  uttered  were  in  themselves  unintelligible,  so  that  no 
man  living  (unless  inspired)  could  understand  them.  When 
the  apostles  spake  with  tongues  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  what 
they  said  was  understood.  The  meaning  is,  not  that  no  man 
living,  but  that  no  man  present,  could  understand.  It  is  not 
the  use  of  the  gift  of  tongues  that  he  censures,  but  the  use  of 
that  gift  when  no  one  was  present  who  understood  the  lan 
guage  employed.  Howbeit  in  the  spirit  he  speaketli  mysteries. 
Spirit  does  not  mean  the  man's  own  spirit  as  distinguished 
from  his  understanding.  The  Scriptures  do  not  distinguish 
between  the  vo£s  and  Tri/eC/m  as  distinct  faculties  of  the  human 
intelligence.  The  latter  is  not  the  higher  spiritual  powers  of 
our  nature,  but  the  Holy  Spirit ;  comp.  2,  14.  In  favour  of  this 
interpretation  is,  1.  The  prevailing  use  of  the  word  spirit  in 
reference  to  the  Holy  Ghost  in  all  Paul's  epistles,  and  especially 
in  this  whole  connection.  2.  That  the  expression  to  speak  in 
or  by  the  Spirit,  is  an  established  Scriptural  phrase,  meaning 
to  speak  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  3.  When 
spirit  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  understanding,  it  desig 
nates  the  affections ;  a  sense  which  would  not  at  all  suit  this 
passage.  4.  The  meaning  arrived  at  by  this  interpretation  is 
natural,  and  suitable  to  the  connection.  '  Although  he  who 


280  I.  CORINTHIANS    14,  2.3.4. 

speaks  with  tongues  is  not  understood,  yet,  guided  by  the 
Spirit,  he  speaks  mysteries.  Mysteries  mean  "divine  truths ; 
things  which  God  has  revealed.  In  Acts  2,  11,  they  are 
called  "  the  wonderful  things  (ra  /x,eyaXeta)  of  God."  To  make 
the  word  mean,  things  not  understood  by  the  hearer,  is  con 
trary  to  the  usage  of  the  word.  A  secret  disclosed,  is  no 
longer  a  secret ;  and  a  mystery  revealed  ceases  to  be  a  mys 
tery,  for  a  mystery  is  something  hidden.  Besides,  Paul  would 
then  say,  4  No  man  understands  him,  yet  he  speaks  what  is  not 
understood.'  *  The  meaning  obviously  is,  that  although  not 
understood,  yet  what  he  utters  contains  divine  truth.  The 
difficulty  was  in  the  language  used,  not  in  the  absence  of 
meaning,  or  in  the  fact  that  inarticulate  sounds  were  em 
ployed.  This  verse,  therefore,  contains  nothing  inconsistent 
with  the  commonly  received  view  of  the  nature  of  the  gift  in 
question.  4  He  who  speaks  with  tongues,  speaks  to  God  and 
not  to  men,  for  no  one  (in  the  case  supposed)  understands 
him,  although  what  he  says  is  replete  with  the  highest  mean 
ing.'  The  implication  is  that  these  tongues  were  foreign  to 
the  hearers ;  and  therefore  it  is  said,  c  no  man  understands 
him..' 

3.  But  he  that  prophesieth  speaketh  unto  men  (to) 
edification,  and  exhortation,  and  comfort. 

The  prophet  spoke  in  the  native  language  of  his  hearers ; 
the  speaker  with  tongues  in  a  foreign  language.  This  made 
the  difference  between  the  cases.  The  one  was  understood 
and  the  other  was  not.  The  prophet  spoke  with  a  view  to 
edification.  This  is  a  general  term  including  the  sense  of  the 
two  following.  He  edified  the  church  either  by  exhortation 
or  comfort ;  either  by  arousing  believers  to  do  or  suffer,  or  by 
pouring  into  their  hearts  the  consolations  of  the  Spirit. 

4.  He  that  speaketh  in  an  (unknown)  tongue  edi- 
fieth  himself;    but  he  that  prophesieth   edifreth   the 
church. 

*  CALVIX  says,  Hysteria  ct  res  occultas,  ideoque  nullius  utilitatis.  Hyste 
ria  hie  Chrysostomus  accepit  honorifice,  pro  eximiis  Dei  revelationibus :  ego 
vero  in  malam  partem  pro  aenigmatibus  obscuris  et  involutis,  quasi  dicerct, 
loquitur  quod  nemo  pereipiat.  Calvin's  view  of  the  gift  of  tongues  seems  to 
have  been  very  little  higher  than  that  of  some  of  the  moderns. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  4.5.  281 

This  follows  from  what  had  been  said.  The  speaker  with 
tono-ues  did  not  edify  the  church,  because  he  was  not  under 
stood  •  he  did  edify  himself,  because  he  understood  himselt, 
This  verse,  therefore,  proves  that  the  understanding  was  not 
in  abeyance,  and  that  the  speaker  was  not  in  an  ecstatic 

5.  I  would  that  ye  all  spake  with  tongues,  but 
rather  that  ye  prophesied :  for  greater  (is)  he  that  pro 
phesied  than  he  that  speaketh  with  tongues,  except  he 
interpret,  that  the  church  may  receive  edifying. 

I  would  that  ye  all  spake  with  tongues.    It  was  not  to  be 
inferred  from  what  he  had  said,  that  the  apostle  undervalue, 
this  gift.     He  admitted  its  importance  as  one  of  the  manifesto- 
tions  of  the  Spirit,  and  he  subsequently,  v.  18,  gives  thanks 
that  he  himself  possessed  it  in  rich  measure.     From  this  it  is 
evident  that  it  was  something  of  a  higher  nature  than  modern 
theories  would  represent  it.     But  rather  that  ye  prophesied, 
(&Xo>  IVa).    I  would  that.    The  same  particle  often  follows 
verbs  of  wishing,  praying,  exhorting,  &c.     For  greater  is  he 
that  prophesieth,  &c.,  i.  e.  he  is  more  useful  than  the  speaker 
with  tongues,  unless  the  latter  interpret.     •'Nam  si  accedat 
interpretatio,  jam  erit  prophetia."    CALVIN.     Speaking  under 
the  supernatural  influence  of  the  Spirit  was  common  to  both 
gifts  •  the  only  difference  was  in  the  language  used, 
speaker  interpreted,  then  he  prophesied.     That  the  church 
may  receive  edification.     This  proves  that  the  contents  of 
these  discourses,  delivered  in  an  unknown  tongue,  were  edi 
fying;  and  therefore  did  not  consist  in  mysteries  in  the  bad 
sense  of  that  term;  i.  e.  in  enigmas  and  dark  sayings      Inis 
passage  also  proves  that  the  gift  of  interpretation,  although 
distinct  from  that  of  tongues,  might  be,  and  doubtless  often 
was  possessed  by  the  same  person,  and  consequently,  that  he 
understood  what  he  said.    The  absence  of  the  gift  of  interpre 
tation  does  not  prove  that  the  speaker  himself  in  such  cases 
was  io-norant  of  what  he  uttered.     It  only  proves  that  he  was 
not  inspired  to  communicate  in  another  language  what  he  had 
delivered.     Had  he  done  so,  it  would  have  been  on  his  own 
authority,  and  not  as  an  organ  of  the  Spirit.     It  is  conceivable 
that  a  man  might  speak  connectedly  in  a  foreign  language 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  so  as  to  be  perfectly  under 
stood  by  those  acquainted  with  the  language,  though  he  him- 


282  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  5.  6.  7. 

self  did  not  understand  a  word  of  what  he  uttered.  But  this 
hypothesis,  though  it  would  suit  some  passages  in  this  chap 
ter,  is  inconsistent  with  others,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
adopted. 

6.  Now,  brethren,  if  I  come  unto  you  speaking 
with  tongues,  what  shall  I  profit  you,  except  I  shall 
speak  to  you  either  by  revelation,  or  by  knowledge,  or 
by  prophesying,  or  by  doctrine  ? 


(vwl  Se),  since  things  are  so,  i.  e.  since  speaking  with 
tongues  without  interpreting  is  unedifying,  what  shall  I  profit 
you,  asks  the  apostle,  if  I  should  come  to  you  speaking  in  a 
language  which  you  do  not  understand  ?  He  then  varies  the 
question,  '  What  shall  I  profit  you  unless  I  speak  to  you  as  a 
prophet,  by  (or  rather  with,  eV)  a  revelation,  or  as  a  teacher, 
with  a  doctrine.'  There  are  not  four,  but  only  two  modes  of 
address  contemplated  in  this  verse.  Revelation  and  prophecy 
belong  to  one;  and  knowledge  and  doctrine  to  the  other. 
He  who  received  revelations  was  a  prophet,  he  who  had  "  the 
word  of  knowledge  "  was  a  teacher. 

7.  And  even  things  without  life  giving  sound, 
whether  pipe  or  harp,  except  they  give  a  distinction  in 
the  sounds,  how  shall  it  be  known  what  is  piped  or 
harped  ? 


This  verse  in  Greek  begins  with  the  word  o/zws,  yet,  which 
is  variously  explained.  The  most  natural  interpretation  is  to 
assume  that  the  word  here,  as  in  Gal.  3,  15,  is  out  of  its  logi 
cal  place,  and  that  the  sentence  should  read  thus:  'Things 
without  life  giving  sound,  yet,  unless  they  give  a  distinction 
of  sound,  how  shall  it  be  known,"  &c.  The  obvious  design  of 
the  illustration  is  to  show  the  uselessness  of  making  sounds 
which  are  not  understood.  But  what  is  the  point  of  the 
analogy  ?  According  to  some  it  is  this,  as  musical  instruments 
emit  a  mere  jargon  of  sounds,  unless  the  regular  intervals  be 
observed,  so  the  speakers  with  tongues  utter  a  mere  jargon. 
The  sounds  which  they  utter  are  not  articulate  words,  but  a 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  7.8.9.  283 

confused  noise.*  From  this  it  is  inferred  that  the  speaking 
with  tongues  was  not  the  gift  of  speaking  foreign  languages. 
This  would  make  Paul  wish  (v.  5)  that  all  the  Corinthians 
would  utter  unmeaning  sounds,  and  give  thanks  that  he  pro 
duced  more  such  jargon  than  any  of  them !  It  is  plain  from 
what  follows,  as  well  as  from  the  drift  of  the  whole  discourse, 
that  the  simple  point  of  the  analogy  is,  that  as  we  cannot 
know  what  is  piped  or  harped,  or  be  benefited  by  it,  unless 
we  can  discriminate  the  sounds  emitted ;  so  we  cannot  be 
benefited  by  listening  to  one  who  speaks  a  language  which 
we  do  not  understand.  It  is  not  the  nature  of  the  gift,  but 
the  folly  of  the  use  made  of  it,  which  is  the  point  which  the 
apostle  has  in  view. 

8.  For  if  the  trumpet  give  an  uncertain  sound,  who 
shall  prepare  himself  to  the  battle  ? 

This  is  a  confirmation  of  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding 
verse.  The  sound  emitted  does  not  produce  its  proper  effect 
if  it  be  unintelligible  or  uncertain.  This  teaches  us  the  point 
of  the  whole  illustration.  The  trumpet  may  sound  the  battle 
call,  but  if  that  call  is  not  understood,  who  will  heed  it?  So 
the  speaker  with  tongues  may  announce  the  most  important 
truths,  he  may  unfold  mysteries,  or  pour  forth  praises  as  from 
a  harp  of  gold,  what  can  it  profit  those  who  do  not  under 
stand  him  ? 

9.  So  likewise  ye,  except  ye  utter  by  the  tongue 
words  easy  to  be  understood,  how  shall  it  be  known 
what  is  spoken  ?  for  ye  shall  speak  into  the  air. 

This  is  the  application  of  the  preceding  illustration,  and 
affords  another  proof  of  what  the  apostle  intended  to  ^illustrate. 
It  was  not  the  nature  of  the  sounds  uttered,  but  their  unintel- 
lio-ibleness  to  the  hearer,  which  was  to  be  considered.  By 
the  tongue,  i.  e.  by  means  of  the  tongue  as  the  organ  of  speech. 
Words  easy  to  be  understood,  or  rather,  an  intelligible  dis- 

*  Acsi  diceret :  Non  potest  homo  dare  citharae  aut  tibiae  animam  :  vocem 
tamen  affingit  ita  temperatam,  ut  discerni  queat ;  quam  igitur  absurdum  est, 
homines  ipsos  intelligentiae  praeditos  confusum  nescio  quid  sonare  ?— Calvin. 
This  would  seem  to  mean  that  the  speaker  with  tongues  uttered  a  confused 
Boise,  with  no  more  meaning  in  it  than  thrumming  on  a  harp. 


284  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  9.  10.  11. 

course.  This  does  not  imply,  as  is  contended  by  the  advocates 
of  the  modern  theories,  that  those  who  spoke  with  tongues 
uttered  inarticulate  sounds.  The  opposite  of  euo-^/xos,  is  not 
inarticulate,  but  unintelligible,  i.  e.  what  is  not  in  fact  under 
stood.  Ye  shall  speak  into  the  air,  i.  e.  in  vain.  Your  words 
are  lost  in  the  air,  no  ear  receives  them.  In  9,  26,  the  man 
who  struck  in  vain  is  said  to  smite  the  air. 

10.  There  are,  it  may  be,  so  many  kinds  of  voices 
in  the  world,  and  none  of  them  (is)  without  signifi 
cation. 

There  are,  it  may  be,  so  many  kinds  of  voices.  The  words 
(ei  T-UXOL),  properly  rendered,  it  may  be,  are  often  used  to  ren 
der  a  statement  indefinite,  where  precision  is  impossible  or 
unimportant.  It  was  no  matter,  so  far  as  the  apostle's  object 
was  concerned,  whether  the  "  kinds  of  sound "  in  the  world 
were  more  or  less.  There  are  so  many,  or,  as  we  should  say, 
'  There  are  ever  so  many,  it  may  be,  languages  in  the  world.' 
Kinds  of  voices.  Calvin  understands  this  of  the  voices  or 
natural  cries  of  animals.  All  animated  nature  is  vocal ;  no 
living  creature  is  mute  or  utters  unintelligible  sounds :  tota 
igitur  naturaB  series  qua3  est  a  Deo  ordinata,  nos  ad  distinctio- 
iicm  invitat.  The  context,  however,  shows  that  the  reference 
is  to  human  speech,  therefore  the  words  (yiv-rj  <£wvwv)  should 
be  translated  kinds  of  languages,  Gen.  1,  11.  And  no  one  of 
them  is  without  signification,  i.  e.  inarticulate.  The  phrase 
is  (<£o>j/r/  a<jWos),  a  language  which  is  no  language,  that  is, 
without  significancy,  which  is  the  essence  of  a  language.  The 
illustration  contained  in  this  verse  goes  to  prove  that  speaking 
with  tongues  was  to  speak  in  foreign  languages.  The  very 
point  is  that  as  all  languages  are  significant,  so  the  languages 
used  by  those  who  spoke  with  tongues  were  significant.  The 
difficulty  was  not  in  the  language  used,  but  in  the  ignorance 
of  the  hearer.  This  is  still  plainer  from  what  follows. 

11.  Therefore  if  I  know  not  the  meaning  of  the 
voice,  I  shall  be  unto  him  that  speaketh  a  barbarian, 
and  he  that  speaketh  (shall  be)  a  barbarian  unto  me. 

Therefore,  i.  e.  because  the  sounds  uttered  are  significant ; 
because  the  man  does  not  make  a  mere  senseless  noise,  but 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  11.12.  285 

speaks  a  real  language,  therefore,  if  I  know  not  the  meaning 
of  the  voice  (i.  e.  the  language),  I  shall  stand  in  the  relation 
of  a  foreigner  to  him  and  he  to  me.  Otherwise  it  would  not 
be  so.  If  a  man  utters  incoherent,  inarticulate  sounds,  which 
no  man  living  could  understand,  that  would  not  make  him  a 
foreigner.  It  might  prove  him  to  be  deranged,  but  not  a 
stranger.  The  word  barbarian  means  simply  one  of  another 
country.  All  other  people,  whether  civilized  or  not,  were 
barbarians  to  the  Greeks,  or  to  the  Romans.  As  ancient 
civilization  came  to  be  confined  to  those  nations,  not  to  be  a 
Greek  or  Roman,  was  to  be  uncivilized,  and  Alienee  barbarian 
or  foreigner  came  to  mean  without  civilization.  Just  as  the 
true  religion  being  confined  to  the  Jews,  Gentile  (one  not  a 
Jew)  came  to  be  synonomous  with  heathen.  In  this  passage, 
however,  barbarian  means  simply  foreigner.  Comp.  Rom.  1, 
14.  Acts  28,  24.  Col.  3,  11. 

12.  Even  so  ye,  forasmuch  as  ye  are  zealous  of 
spiritual  (gifts),  seek  that  ye  may  excel  to  the  edifying 
of  the  church. 

Even  so  ye.  That  is,  as  the  man  who  speaks  a  language 
which  I  do  not  understand,  is  a  foreigner  to  me  and  I  to  him, 
so  are  ye.  You  too  are  foreigners  to  those  who  do  not  un 
derstand  the  language  which  you  use.  As  all  such  unintelli 
gible  speaking  is  worthless,  the  apostle  exhorts  them  to  seek 
to  edify  the  church.  As  ye  are  zealous  of  spiritual  gifts ; 
literally,  of  spirits.  The  most  probable  explanation  of  this 
expression  is  to  be  sought  from  12,  7,  where  it  is  said  that 
"  to  every  one  is  given  a  manifestation  of  the  Spirit."  One 
and  the  same  Spirit  manifests  himself  in  different  ways  in  dif 
ferent  persons ;  and  these  different  manifestations  are  called 
spirits.  Somewhat  analogous  are  the  expressions,  "  spirits  of 
the  prophets,"  v.  32;  "discernment  of  spirits,"  12, 11  ;  "try 
the  spirits,"  1  John  4,  1 ;  and  "  the  seven  Spirits  of  God," 
spoken  of  in  the  Apocalypse.  In  all  these  cases  spirits  mean 
manifestations  of  the  Spirit,  or  forms  under  which  the  Spirit 
manifests  himself.  It  is  not  an  unusual  metonomy  when  the 
effect  receives  the  name  of  its  cause.  Comp.  Gal.  5,  17,  "The 
spirit  lusteth  against  the  flesh,"  where  spirit  may  mean  the 
renewed  principle  produced  by  the  Spirit. 

Seek  that  ye  may  excel  (or  abound)  to  the  edifying  of  the 
church,  This  is  the  common  explanation  of  this  clause.  But 


286  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  12.13.14. 

taking  the  words  in  their  order  the  passage  reads,  l  Seek 
(these  gifts)  with  a  view  to  the  edification  of  the  church,  in 
order  that  ye  may  excel.'  The  former  explanation  is  the  more 
natural.  The  end  or  object  to  be  sought  is  not  that  they 
might  excel ;  that  is  not  the  ultimate  object,  but  the  edifica 
tion  of  the  church.  The  words  ^TCITC  iva,  KrA.,  therefore, 
naturally  go  together.  '  Seek  that  ye  may  abound  unto  the 
edification  of  the  church,'  i.  e.  that  ye  may  possess  in  rich 
abundance  those  gifts  which  are  useful. 

13.  Wherefore  let  him  that  speaketh  in  an  (un 
known)  tongue  pray  that  he  may  interpret. 

This  is  an  inference  not  only  from  the  preceding  verse  but 
from  the  whole  preceding  argument,  which  was  designed  to 
show  how  useless  it  is  to  speak  in  a  language  which  no  one 
present  understands.  The  verse  admits  of  two  interpretations. 
It  may  mean  that  the  speaker  with  tongues  should  pray  for 
the  gift  of  interpretation ;  or,  that  he  should  pray  with  the 
purpose  (Iva)  of  interpreting  what  he  said.  The  principal  rea 
son  for  this  latter  interpretation  is  the  assumption  that  the 
gift  of  tongues  was  exercised  only  in  prayer  and  praise ;  in 
other  words,  that  it  consisted  in  an  ecstatic  but  unintelligible 
and  unintelligent  pouring  out  of  the  heart  to  God.  It  is  there 
fore  inferred  that  "to  speak  with  a  tongue,"  v.  13,  and  "to 
pray  with  a  tongue,"  v.  14,  mean  exactly  the  same  thing;  the 
former  being  no  more  comprehensive  than  the  latter.  But 
this  whole  assumption  is  not  only  gratuitous  but  contrary  to 
Scripture.  The  gift  of  tongues  was,  according  to  Acts  2,  5-1 1, 
exercised  in  declaring  the  "  wonderful  works  of  God."  It  is 
also  apparent  from  what  is  said  in  this  chapter,  vs.  22-25,  and 
v.  27,  that  the  gift  in  question  was  not  confined  to  acts  of  de 
votion.  The  former  interpretation  is  therefore  to  be  preferred. 
4  Let  him  pray  that  (Iva)  he  may  interpret.'  For  this  use  of 
Iva  after  verbs  of  entreating,  &c.,  see  Robinson's  Greek  Lex. 
p.  352. 

14.  For  if  I  pray  in  an   (unknown)  tongue,  my 
spirit  prayeth,  but  my  understanding  is  unfruitful. 

This  is  the  reason  why  the  speaker  with  tongues  should 
pray  for  the  gift  of  interpretation.  Unless  he  interprets  his 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  14.  287 

prayer  can  do  no  good ;  or,  as  the  same  idea  is  expressed  in 
vs.  16,  17,  those  who  are  unlearned  cannot  join  in  it.  Praying 
with  a  tongue  is  specified,  by  way  of  example,  as  one  mode  of 
speaking  with  tongues.  Though  the  general  meaning  of  this 
verse  is  thus  plain,  it  is  the  most  difficult  verse  in  the  whole 
chapter.  What  does  Paul  mean  by  saying,  His  spirit  prays  ? 
There  are  three  answers  given  to  this  question.  1.  That  spirit 
(my  spirit)  here  means  the  higher  intellectual  powers  of  the 
soul,  as  distinguished  from  the  understanding.  This  verse 
and  those  which  immediately  follow,  are  the  principal  founda 
tion  of  the  theory  that  the  speaker  with  tongues  was  in  a  state 
of  ecstatic  excitement  in  which  his  understanding  was  not 
exercised,  so  that  he  knew  not  what  he  said  or  did.  How  in 
consistent  this  theory  is  with  the  facts  of  the  case  has  already 
been  shown.  This  view  of  the  passage,  therefore,  cannot  be 
admitted.  Besides,  it  has  already  been  remarked,  that  the 
Scriptures  know  nothing  of  this  distinction  between  the  reason 
and  the  tinder  standing.  2.  Others  say  that  spirit  here  means 
the  affections.  c  My  feelings  find  utterance  in  prayer,  but  my 
understanding  is  unfruitful.'  This  would  give  a  good  sense ; 
but  this  meaning  of  the  word  spirit  is  of  rare  occurrence.  In 
most  of  the  passages  quoted  by  lexicographers  as  examples  of 
this  use  of  the  term,  it  really  means  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  in 
this  whole  discussion,  spirit  is  not  once  used  for  the  feelings. 
3.  My  spirit  may  mean  the  Holy  Spirit  in  me ;  that  is,  my 
spiritual  gift ;  or,  my  spirit  as  the  organ  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Each  man  has  his  own  spirit,  (comp.  v.  12)  i.  e.  his  own  spirit 
ual  gift.  And  Paul  means  to  say,  that  when  a  man  prays  in 
an  unknown  tongue,  his  spiritual  gift  is  indeed  exercised ;  in 
other  words,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  active  in  him,  but  others  are 
not  profited.  The  speaker  with  tongues  is  not  to  be  set  down 
as  an  enthusiast,  or  as  a  man  in  a  frenzy,  or,  as  the  mockers 
said,  as  a  man  full  of  new  wine.  He  is  really  the  organ  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  But  as  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  under  which 
he  acts,  is  not  irresistible,  he  should  not  exercise  his  gift  where 
it  can  do  no  good  to  others.  He  may  pray  in  silence,  v.  28. 
This  interpretation  seems  much  more  in  accordance  with  the 
use  of  the  word  and  with  the  whole  drift  of  the  chapter. 

What  is  meant  by  saying,  my  understanding  is  unfruit 
ful  f  It  may  mean,  My  understanding  is  not  profited,  gains 
no  fruit ;  that  is,  I  do  not  understand  what  I  say.  Though 
the  words  in  themselves  may  have  this  meaning,  this  interpre 
tation  contradicts  all  those  passages  which  teach  that  the 


288  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  14. 

speaker  with  tongues  did  understand  himself.  The  words, 
therefore,  must  be  understood  to  mean,  '  my  understanding 
produces  no  fruit,'  i.  e.  it  does  not  benefit  others.  This  is  in 
accordance  with  all  that  precedes,  and  with  the  uniforn  use  of 
the  word,  Eph.  5,  11.  Tit.  3,  14.  2  Pet.  1,  8.  Matt.  13,  22. 
Paul  had,  from  the  beginning,  been  urging  his  readers  to  have 
regard  to  the  edification  of  the  church,  and  he  here  says,  that 
if  he  prayed  in  an  unknown  tongue,  though  he  acted  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit,  his  prayer  could  not  profit  others.* 
This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  vs.  16.  17,  as  remarked 
above,  where  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  saying,  the  un 
learned  could  not  say  Amen  to  such  a  prayer.  By  his  under 
standing  being  unfruitful  is  therefore  meant,  that  others  did 
not  understand  what  he  said. 

The  great  objection  to  the  preceding  interpretation  is,  that 
my  spirit  and  my  understanding  must  be  explained  in  the 
same  way.  If  the  latter  means  my  own  understanding,  the 
former  must  mean  my  own  spirit.  The  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  said, 
never  is,  and  cannot  be  called  my  spirit,  for  the  very  reason 
that  it  is  distinct  from  the  spirit  of  man.  The  interpretation 
given  above,  however,  does  not  suppose  that  my  spirit  means 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  manifest 
ation  ;  it  is  the  way  in  which  the  Spirit  manifests  himself  in 
me.  In  other  words,  it  is  my  spiritual  gift.  The  objection, 
if  it  have  any  force,  bears  as  much  against  the  conceded  mean 
ing  of  the  phrase,  "  the  spirits  of  the  prophets,"  as  it  does 
against  the  explanation  just  given  of  the  expression,  "  my 

*  CALVIN  says,  Sensus  planus  est.  Si  ergo  idiomate  mihi  ignoto  preces 
concipiam,  ac  spiritus  mihi  verba  suppeditet :  ipse  quidem  spiritus  qui  lin- 
guara  meam  gubernat,  orabit ;  sed  raens  mea  vel  alibi  vagabitur,  vel  saltern 
non  erit  orationis  particeps.  This  implies,  that  the  gift  of  tongues,  at  least 
when  disjoined  from  the  gift  of  interpretation,  was  the  power  to  speak  in  a 
language  which  the  speaker  himself  did  not  at  the  time  understand.  Accord 
ingly  just  before  he  had  asked,  Si  donum  linguae  ab  intelligentia  separetur,  ita 
tit  qui  pronuntiat,  sit  ipse  sibi  barbarus,  quid  proficiet  sic  balbutiendo  ?  Yet 
Calvin  himself  regarded  this  as  ridiculous.  Quam  ridiculum  fuisset,  linguam 
hominis  Romani  formari  Dei  Spiritu  ad  pronuntiandas  voces  Graecas,  quae 
loquenti  essent  prorsus  ignotae  :  qualiter  psittaci,  et  picae,  et  corvi  humanas 
voces  fingere  docentur  ?  It  is  very  certain,  however,  that  the  gift  of  tongues 
was  possessed  by  those  who  had  not  the  gift  of  interpretation,  and  yet,  even  in 
those  cases,  it  was  edifying  to  the  speaker.  It  therefore  follows,  that  this 
view  of  the  nature  of  the  gift  must  be  erroneous.  Those  speaking  with  tongues 
were  not  parrots  or  ravens.  The  expression  in  the  text,  my  understanding  is 
unfruitful,  consequently  cannot  moan.  "  I  do  not  myself  understand  what  I 
say." 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  14.15.  289 

spirit."  The  spirits  of  the  prophets  means  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
manifested  in  the  prophets,  or  the  spiritual  influence  of  which 
they  were  the  subjects.  And  that  is  just  the  meaning  of  my 
spirit  in  this  passage. 

15.  What  is  it  then  ?  I  will  pray  with  the  spirit, 
and  I  will  pray  with  the  understanding  also :  I  will 
sing  with  the  spirit,  and  I  will  sing  with  the  under 
standing  also. 

What  is  it  then  ?  i.  e.  what  is  the  practical  conclusion 
from  what  has  been  said  ?  That  conclusion  is  expressed  by 
Paul's  avowal  of  his  own  purpose.  The  interpretation  of  this 
verse  of  course  depends  on  that  of  the  preceding.  Accord 
ingly,  some  say,  the  meaning  is,  I  will  pray  not  only  with  the 
reason,  but  with  the  understanding  also,  i.  e.  not  only  with 
the  higher  powers  of  my  nature  in  exercise,  but  also  with  such 
a  command  of  the  understanding  as  to  be  able  to  comprehend 
and  to  interpret  what  I  say.*  2.  Others  say  the  passage 
means,  c  I  will  pray  with  the  heart  and  with  the  understand 
ing  ;  my  mind  and  feelings  shall  unite  in  the  exercise.'  A 
very  good  sense,  but  entirely  foreign  to  the  context.  The 
sentiment  is  correct  in  itself,  but  it  is  not  what  Paul  here  says. 
3.  According  to  the  third  interpretation  the  sense  is,  '  I  will 
not  only  pray  in  the  exercise  of  my  spiritual  gift,  but  so  as  to 
be  understood  by  others  ; '  i.  e.  not  only  spiritually  but  intelli 
gibly.  If  TO)  vot,  with  the  understanding,  may  mean,  as  the 
moderns  say  it  does,  '  with  a  view  to  interpret '  (MEYER)  ;  it 
certainly  may  mean,  c  with  a  view  to  be  understood.'  That  is, 
this  is  what  is  implied  and  intended  in  what  the  apostle  says. 
When  a  man  spoke  r<3  Trvev/mn,  with  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit  was 
the  principium  movens,  the  moving  principle,  determining 
him  to  speak,  and  what  to  say.  When  he  spake  with  TW  vo'c, 
with  the  understanding,  the  understanding  was  that  control 
ling  principle.  These  two  could  be  combined.  The  man 
could  so  speak  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  as  to  be  intel 
ligible  to  others. 

*  This  view  of  the  subject  supposes  the  speakers  with  tongues  to  have  been 
in  a  state  somewhat  analogous  to  that  of  somnambulists ;  whose  spiritual  na 
ture  is  in  activity,  bat  their  ordinary  intellectual  consciousness  is  suspended, 
so  that  when  they  are  recovered,  they  do  not  remember  any  thing  they  said  or 
did  when  in  their  somnambulistic  condition. 

13 


290  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  15.16.17. 

I  will  sing.  The  word  (i//aAAeit/)  means  to  touch  •  then  to 
touch  the  cords  of  a  stringed  instrument,  i.  e.  to  play  upon  it ; 
then  to  sing  or  chant  in  harmony  with  such  instrument ;  and 
then  to  sing  or  chant.  This  last  is  its  New  Testament  mean 
ing.  It  appears  from  this  as  well  as  from  other  passages,  that 
singing  was  from  the  beginning  a  part  of  Christian  worship. 
Pliny,  about  forty  years  later,  says,  Christianos  solitos  fuisse 
canere  antelucanos  hymnos  Christo. 

16.  17.  Else,  when  thou  shalt  bless  with  the  spirit, 
how  shall  he  that  occupieth  the  room  of  the  unlearned 
say  Amen  at  thy  giving  of  thanks,  seeing  he  under- 
standeth  not  what  thou  sayest  ?  For  thou  verily  givest 
thanks  well,  but  the  other  is  not  edified. 

Else,  i.  e.  since  in  that  case.  That  is,  in  case  you  do  not 
speak  intelligibly  (r<3  voi  as  well  as  TO>  Trveu/xan).  Jf  thou  shalt 
bless  with  the  spirit.  That  is,  bless  God,  including  praise  and 
thanksgiving.  The  word  translated  to  give  thanks,  in  the  last 
clause  of  the  verse  expresses  the  same  idea.  By  the  Spirit, 
i.  e.  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  or  in  the  exercise  of 
your  spiritual  gift,  as  in  the  preceding  verse.  How  shall  he 
that  occupieth  the  place  of  the  unlearned,  i.  e.  (tSicorov)  of  a  pri 
vate  person.  The  word  is  used  to  designate  one  out  of  office 
in  opposition  to  officers ;  and  in  general,  one  who  does  not 
possess  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  class  to  which 
it  is  opposed.  It  here  designates  the  ungiftcd  in  opposition  to 
those  who  had  the  gift  of  tongues ;  or  rather,  it  is  applicable 
to  any  one  who  was  ignorant  of  the  language  used  by  the 
speaker.  Comp.  vs.  23.  24.  Acts  4, 13.  2  Cor.  11,  6.  The 
context  shows  that  Paul  does  not  refer  to  laymen  in  opposition 
to  church  officers;  for  the  officers  were  just  as  likely  to  be 
(tSioW)  unlearned  as  to  the  language  used  as  others.  To  Jill 
the  place  means  to  occupy  the  position ;  not  a  particular  part 
of  the  place  of  assembly  assigned  to  laymen,  but  to  sustain  the 
relation  to  the  speaker  of  one  unacquainted  with  the  tongue 
which  he  uses.  Say  Amen  at  thy  giving^  of  thanks,  i.  e.  assent 
or  respond  to  it.  Amen  is  a  Hebrew  adjective  signifying  true 
or  faithful,  often  used  adverbially  at  the  end  of  a  sentence  to 
express  assent  to  what  is  said,  in  the  sense  of  so  let  it  be.  In  the 
Jewish  synagogue  it  was  the  custom  for  the  people  to  respond 
to  the  prayers  by  audibly  saying  Amen,  by  which  they  signi- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  16.17.18.19.        291 

fied  their  assent  and  participation  in  the  petitions  which  had 
been  offered.  Buxtorf's  Talm.  Lexicon,  Vitringa  de  Synag. 
Great  importance  was  attached  by  the  Jews  to  saying  Amen. 
Schoettgen  quotes  numerous  passages  to  show  to  what  a  su 
perstitious  extreme  this  was  carried.  "  He  who  says  Amen  is 
greater  than  he  that  blesses."  "  Whoever  says  Amen,  to  him 
the  gates  of  Paradise  are  opened."  "  Whoever  says  Amen 
shortly,  his  days  shall  be  shortened ;  whoever  answers  Amen 
distinctly  and  at  length,  his  days  shall  be  lengthened."  Ac 
cording  to  Justin  Martyr,  Apolog.  ii.  9V,  the  custom  passed 
over  to  the  Christian  church.  This  seems  also  intimated  in 
this  passage ;  the  expression  is,  "  Say  the  Amen,"  i.  e.  utter 
the  familiar  formula  of  assent.  The  unlearned  cannot  thus 
assent,  since  he  knows  not  what  thou  sayest.  Men  cannot 
assent  to  what  they  do  not  understand,  because  assent  implies 
the  affirmation  of  the  truth  of  that  to  which  we  assent.  It  is 
impossible,  therefore,  to  join  in  prayers  uttered  in  an  unknown 
tongue.  The  Romish  church  persists  in  the  use  of  the  Latin 
language  in  her  public  services  not  only  in  opposition  to  the 
very  idea  and  intent  of  worship,  but  also  to  the  express  pro 
hibition  of  the  Scriptures.  For  the  very  thing  here  prohibited 
is  praying  in  public  in  a  language  which  the  people  do  not  un 
derstand.  It  is  indeed  said  that  words  may  touch  the  feelings 
which  do  not  convey  any  distinct  notions  to  the  mind.  But 
we  cannot  say  Amen  to  such  words,  any  more  than  we  can  to 
a  flute.  Such  blind,  emotional  worship,  if  such  it  can  be 
called,  stands  at  a  great  remove  from  the  intelligent  service 
demanded  by  the  apostle.  Thou  verily  givest  thanks  well,  i.  e. 
in  a  way  acceptable  to  God  and  profitable  to  yourself.  This 
proves  that  the  speaker  must  have  understood  what  he  said. 
For  if  the  unintelligible  is  useless,  it  must  be  so  to  the  speaker 
as  well  as  to  the  hearer.  If  it  was  necessary  that  they  should 
understand  in  order  to  be  edified,  it  was  no  less  necessary  that 
he  should  understand  what  he  said  in  order  to  be  benefited. 
This  verse  is  therefore  decisive  against  all  theories  of  the  gift 
of  tongues  which  assume  that  those  who  used  them  did  not 
understand  their  own  words.  The  Scriptures  recognize  no 
unintelligent  worship  of  God,  or  any  spiritual  edification  (in 
the  case  of  adults)  disconnected  from  the  truth ;  whether  that 
edification  be  sought  by  sounds  or  signs,  whether  by  prayers 
or  sacraments. 

18.  19.  I  thank  my  God,  I  speak  with  tongues 


292  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  18.19.20. 

more  than  ye  all :  yet  in  the  church  I  had  rather  speak 
five  words  with  my  understanding,  that  (by  my  voice) 
I  might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in 
an  (unknown)  tongue. 

That  Paul  should  give  thanks  to  God  that  he  was  more 
abundantly  endowed  with  the  gift  of  tongues,  if  that  gift  con 
sisted  in  the  ability  to  speak  in  languages  which  he  himself 
did  not  understand,  and  the  use  of  which,  on  that  assumption, 
could  according  to  his  principle  benefit  neither  himself  nor 
others,  is  not  to  be  believed.  Equally  clear  is  it  from  this 
verse  that  to  speak  with  tongues  Avas  not  to  speak  in  a  state 
of  mental  unconsciousness.  The  common  doctrine  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  gift,  is  the  only  one  consistent  with  this  passage. 
Paul  says  that  although  he  could  speak  in  foreign  languages 
more  than  the  Corinthians,  he  would  rather  speak  five  words 
with  his  understanding,  i.  e.  so  as  to  be  intelligible,  than  ten 
thousand  words  in  an  unknown  tongue.  In  the  church,  i.  e. 
in  the  assembly.  That  I  might  teach  others  also,  (Karrjx^)  to 
instruct  orally,  Gal.  6,  6.  This  shows  what  is  meant  by  speak 
ing  with  the  understanding.  It  is  speaking  in  such  a  way  as 
to  convey  instruction. 

20.  Brethren,  be  not  children  in  understanding : 
howbeit  in  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in  understanding 
be  men. 

There  are  two  characteristics  of  children ;  the  one  a  dispo 
sition  to  be  pleased  with  trifles,  or  to  put  a  false  estimate  on 
things;  the  other,  comparative  innocence.  There  is  a  great 
difference  as  to  every  thing  evil  between  a  little  child  and  a 
full-grown  man.  The  former  of  these  characteristics  the 
apostle  wished  the  Corinthians  to  lay  aside.  The  latter  he 
wished  them  to  cultivate.  They  had  displayed  a  childish  dis 
position  in  estimating  the  gift  of  tongues  above  more  useful 
gifts,  and  in  using  it  when  it  could  answer  no  good  purpose. 
A  little  child,  however,  is  some  thing  so  lovely,  and  is  so  often 
held  up  in  Scripture  for  imitation,  that  he  could  not  say,  with 
out  qualification,  Be,  not  children.  He  therefore  says,  Be  not 
children  as  to  understanding  •  but  as  to  malice,  a  comprehen 
sive  word  for  evil  dispositions,  be  ye  children.  So  our  Lord 
said,  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  Matt.  18,  3. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  21.  293 

21.  In  the  law  it  is  written,  With  (men  of)  other 
tongues  and  other  lips  will  I  speak  unto  this  people  ; 
and  yet  for  all  that  will  they  not  hear  me,  saith  the 
Lord. 

In  the  law.  The  word  law  signifies  that  which  binds ;  es 
pecially  that  which  binds  the  conscience  as  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  That  rule  may  be  revealed  in  our  hearts,  in  the 
whole  Scriptures,  in  the  Pentateuch,  or  in  the  moral  law ;  and 
hence  the  word  as  used  in  Scripture  may  refer  to  any  one  of 
these  forms  in  which  the  will  of  God  is  made  known ;  or  it 
may  include  them  all.  The  context  must  decide  its  meaning 
in  each  particular  case.  Here,  as  in  John  10,  34.  Rom.  3,  20, 
and  elsewhere,  the  reference  is  not  to  the  Pentateuch,  but  to 
the  Old  Testament.  The  passage  quoted  is  Is.  28,  11.  12, 
which  in  our  version  stands  thus,  "  For  with  stammering  lips, 
and  another  tongue,  will  he  speak  to  this  people.  To  whom 
he  said,  This  is  the  rest  wherewith  ye  may  cause  the  weary  to 
rest ;  and  this  is  the  refreshing :  yet  they  would  not  hear.'' 
The  apostle  gives  the  llth  verse  in  a  free  translation,  and  the 
concluding  words  of  the  12th.  He  does  not  quote  the  passage 
as  having  any  prophetic  reference  to  the  events  in  Corinth ; 
much  less  does  he  give  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  it  in 
order  to  make  it  a  condemnation  of  speaking  with  tongues. 
It  is  a  simple  reference  to  a  signal  event  in  the  Jewish  history 
from  which  the  Corinthians  might  derive  a  useful  lesson.  The 
Jews  had  refused  to  hear  the  prophets  speaking  their  own 
language,  and  God  threatened  to  bring  upon  them  a  people 
whose  language  they  could  not  understand.  This  was  a 
judgment ;  a  mark  of  displeasure  designed  as  a  punishment 
and  not  for  their  conversion.  From  this  the  Corinthians 
might  learn  that  it  was  no  mark  of  the  divine  favour  to  have 
teachers  whose  language  they  could  not  understand.  They 
were  turning  a  blessing  into  a  curse.  The  gift  of  tongues  was 
designed,  among  other  things,  to  facilitate  the  propagation  of 
the  gospel,  by  enabling  Christians  to  address  people  of  vari 
ous  nations  each  in  his  own  language.  Used  for  this  pur 
pose  it  was  a  blessing ;  but  to  employ  it  for  the  sake  of  display, 
in  addressing  those  who  could  not  understand  the  language 
employed,  was  to  make  it  a  curse.  The  Spirit  of  God  often 
confers  gifts  on  men,  and  then  holds  them  responsible  for  the 
way  in  which  they  exercise  them. 


294  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  22. 

22.  Wherefore  tongues  are  for  a  sign,  not  to  them 
that  believe,  but  to  them  that  believe  not :  but  prophe 
sying  (serveth)  not  for  them  that  believe  not,  but  for 
them  which  believe. 

There  are  two  inaccuracies  in  this  version  which  obscure 
the  sense;  The  first  is  the  introduction  of  the  word  serveth 
after  prophesying.  The  clauses  are  parallel.  Tongues  are  for 
a  sign  to  one  class,  and  prophesying  to  another.  Nothing 
need  be  supplied ;  what  is  implied  is,  that  prophesying  is  for 
a  sign.  The  introduction  of  the  word  serveth  is  not  only  un 
necessary,  but  contrary  to  the  context.  The  second  inaccura 
cy  is  expressing  the  force  of  the  datives  (Triorevouo-i  and  airia-- 
TOIS)  by  to  in  the  first  member  of  the  verse,  and  by  for  in  the 
second  member.  There  is  no  reason  for  this  change.  The 
relation  expressed  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  '  Tongues  are 
for  the  one,  prophesying  are  for  the  other ; '  or,  '  Tongues  are 
for  a  sign  to  the  one,  and  prophesying  to  the  other.'  The 
connection  between  this  verse  and  what  precedes  is  indicated 
by  the  word  wherefore,  or  so  that.  The  inference  may  be 
drawn  either  from  the  immediately  preceding  clause,  viz., 
"  For  all  that  they  will  not  hear  me,  saith  the  Lord ; "  or  from 
the  historical  fact  referred  to  in  the  whole  verse.  If  the  for 
mer,  then  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  to  show  that  as  teaching 
the  Hebrews  by  men  of  other  tongues  did  not  render  them 
obedient ;  so  speaking  in  other  tongues  would  not  profit  the 
Corinthians.  If  the  latter,  then  the  design  is  to  show,  that  as 
sending  foreigners  among  the  Hebrews  was  a  mark  of  God's 
displeasure,  so  speaking  in  the  Christian  assemblies  in  foreign 
languages  would  be  a  curse  and  not  a  blessing.  The  latter 
view  is  demanded  by  the  whole  context. 

The  inference  from  the  preceding  verse  is  that  tongues  are 
a  sign  not  to  the  believing  but  to  the  unbelieving,  and  pro 
phesying  just  the  reverse.  This  difficult  verse  is  variously 
explained.  1.  The  word  sign  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  mark  or 
proof,  as  when  it  is  said,  "the  signs  of  an  apostle,"  2  Cor.  12, 
12,  that  is,  the  tokens  by  which  an  apostle  may  be  known. 
Comp.  Luke  2,  12.  2  Thess.  3,  17.  The  meaning  of  the  pas 
sage  would  then  be,  '  Tongues  are  a  proof  that  those  among 
whom  they  are  used  are  not  believers,  but  unbelievers ;  and 
prophesying  is  a  proof  that  they  are  believers,  and  not  unbe 
lievers.'  But  when  the  word  is  used  in  this  sense,  the  thing 
of  which  it  is  a  sign  is  put  in  the  genitive.  It  is  a  sign  of, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  22.  295 

not  to  or  for.  2.  It  may  mean  a  prodigy  or  wonder.  This  is 
a  very  common  sense  of  the  word,  as  in  the  familiar  phrase, 
"  signs  and  wonders."  The  meaning  is  then  commonly  made 
to  be, '  Tongues  are  a  wonder  designed  not  for  the  benefit  of  be 
lievers,  but  for  unbelievers ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  prophesy 
is  a  wonder  designed  not  for  the  benefit  of  unbelievers,  but 
for  the  benefit  of  believers.'  But  this  is  neither  true  nor  in 
accordance  with  v.  24.  It  is  not  true  that  the  gift  of  tongues 
was  designed  exclusively  for  the  conversion  of  unbelievers. 
Why  should  not  that  gift  be  exercised  for  the  edification,  as 
well  as  for  the  conversion  of  men  ?  Their  conversion  would 
not  enable  them  to  understand  the  native  language  of  the 
apostles.  Much  less  is  it  true  that  prophecy  was  designed  ex 
clusively  for  the  edification  of  believers.  The  prophets  and 
apostles  were  sent  forth  for  the  conversion  of  the  world.  And 
in  v.  24  the  conversion  of  unbelievers  is  specified  as  the  very 
effect  to  be  anticipated  from  the  use  of  this  gift.  A  still  more 
decisive  objection  to  this  interpretation  is,  that  it  does  not 
give  the  true  conclusion  from  the  preceding  verse.  The  na 
ture  of  the  premises  must  decide  the  nature  of  the  inference. 
It  is  not  a  fair  inference  from  the  fact  that  although  God  sent 
foreigners  to  teach  the  Hebrews  they  still  continued  disobedi 
ent,  that  foreign  tongues  were  designed  for  the  conversion  of 
unbelievers.  The  very  opposite  conclusion  would  naturally 
follow  from  that  fact.  3.  Sign  may  here  mean  a  warning  or 
sign  of  punishment.  '  Tongues  are  a  warning,  designed  not 
for  believers,  but  for  unbelievers,'  who  are  understood  to  be, 
not  those  merely  without  faith,  but  positive  infidels,  or  obsti 
nate  rejectors  of  the  truth.  To  this,  however,  it  may  be  ob 
jected,  that  the  word  unbeliever  (owrurros)  is  used  in  v.  24  for 
those  without  faith,  and  that  to  assume  a  change  of  meaning 
in  the  same  context  is  most  unnatural.  A  still  more  serious 
objection  is,  that  this  interpretation  cannot  be  carried  out. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  prophecy  is  a  warning  designed  for  be 
lievers.  The  two  members  of  the  sentence  are  so  related  that 
whatever  is  said  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  must  be  true,  mutan 
dis  mutatis,  of  prophecy.  If  the  one  be  a  punishment  de 
signed  for  unbelievers,  the  other  must  be  a  punishment  de 
signed  for  believers.  4.  The  most  satisfactory  explanation  is 
to  take  sign  in  the  general  sense  of  any  indication  of  the 
divine  presence.  '  Tongues  are  a  manifestation  of  God,  hav 
ing  reference,  not  to  believers,  but  to  unbelievers ;  and  pro 
phecy  is  a  similar  manifestation,  having  reference,  not  to 


296  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  22.23. 

unbelievers,  but  to  believers.'  By  tongues,  however,  is  not  to 
be  understood  the  gift  of  tongues,  but,  as  v.  21  requires, 
foreign  languages,  i.  e.  languages  unknown  to  the  hearers. 
The  meaning  is,  that  when  a  people  are  disobedient,  God 
sends  them  teachers  whom  they  cannot  understand;  wrhen 
they  are  obedient,  he  sends  them  prophets  speaking  their  own 
language.  This  is  the  natural  conclusion  from  the  premises 
contained  in  v.  21.  When  the  Hebrews  were  disobedient 
God  sent  foreigners  among  them;  when  obedient,  he  sent 
them  prophets.  Wherefore,  i.  e.  hence  it  follows,  that  unin 
telligible  teachers  are  for  the  unbelieving ;  those  who  can  be 
understood  are  for  the  believing.  This  view  is  also  consistent 
with  what  follows,  which  is  designed  to  show  that  speaking  in 
a  language  which  those  who  hear  cannot  understand  is  the 
cause  of  evil ;  whereas  speaking  intelligibly  is  the  source  of 
good.  It  must  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  the  gift  of 
tongues  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  but  speaking  to  people 
in  a  language  which  they  do  not  understand.  And  therefore 
this  interpretation  does  not  imply  any  disparagement  of  the 
gift  in  question.  When  used  aright,  that  is,  when  employed 
in  addressing  those  to  whom  the  language  used  was  intelligi 
ble,  it  was  prophecy.  The  obscurity  of  the  passage  arises  in 
a  great  measure  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  expression  to  speak 
with  tongues.  It  means  to  speak  in  foreign  or  unknown  lan 
guages.  But  a  language  may  be  said  to  be  unknoAvn  either 
in  reference  to  the  speaker  or  to  the  hearer.  It  is  said  to  be 
unknown  to  the  speaker,  if  not  previously  acquired ;  and  it  is 
said  to  be  unknown  to  the  hearers  if  they  do  not  understand 
it.  The  apostle  uses  the  expression  sometimes  in  one  sense 
and  sometimes  in  the  other.  When  it  is  said  that  the  apostles, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  spake  with  tongues,  it  means  that 
they  used  languages  which  they  had  never  learned ;  but  when 
Paul  says  he  would  rather  speak  five  words  intelligibly  than 
ten  thousand  words  with  a  tongue,  he  means  in  a  language 
unknown  to  the  hearers.  Speaking  with  tongues  in  the  one 
sense,  was  a  grace  and  a  blessing ;  in  the  other  sense,  it  was  a 
folly  and  a  curse.  It  was  of  speaking  with  tongues  in  the  lat 
ter  sense  the  apostle  treats  in  these  verses. 

23.  If  therefore  the  whole  church  be  come  together 
into  one  place,  and  all  speak  with  tongues,  and  there 
come  in  (those  that  are)  unlearned,  or  unbelievers,  will 
they  not  say  that  ye  are  mad  ? 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  23.24.25.  297 

If  therefore.  The  inference  from  the  preceding  representa 
tion  is,  that  speaking  in  languages  not  understood  by  the  peo 
ple  is  undesirable  and  useless.  To  show  the  justness  of  this 
conclusion  the  apostle  supposes  the  case  which  follows.  If 
the  whole  church  be  come  together  in  one  place.  That  is,  if  all 
the  Christians  of  the  place,  or  the  whole  congregation,  be  as 
sembled.  This  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  hypothesis. 
Another  is,  that  all  should  speak  with  tongues.  This  does  not 
necessarily  imply  either  that  all  present  had  the  gift  of  tongues, 
or  that  all  who  possessed  the  gift  spoke  at  one  and  the  same 
time,  although  from  vs.  27  and  30  it  maybe  inferred  that  this 
was  sometimes  done.  All  that  the  words  here  require  is  that 
all  who  spoke  used  foreign  languages.  To  speak  with  tongues 
must  mean  to  speak  in  languages  unknown  to  the  hearers. 
The  third  condition  of  the  case  supposed  is,  that  unlearned 
and  unbelievers  should  come  into  the  meeting.  Who  are  the 
(iSuorai),  the  unlearned  here  intended?  1.  Some  say  they 
were  Christians  ignorant  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  because  they 
are  distinguished  from  unbelievers,  or  those  not  Christians. 
2.  Others  say  that  the  unlearned  are  those  who  were  ignorant 
of  Christianity,  and  the  (aTrtorroi)  unbelieving,  are  those  who 
knew  and  rejected  it,  i.  e.  infidels.  This  is  giving  to  the  word 
a  force  which  it  has  not  in  itself,  and  which  the  context  docs 
not  give  it.  3.  The  simplest  explanation  is  that  the  unlearned 
were  those  ignorant  of  the  language  spoken,  and  the  unbeliev 
ing  those  not  Christians,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.  Such 
persons  were  doubtless  often  led,  from  curiosity  or  other  mo 
tives,  to  attend  the  Christian  assemblies.  The  two  classes 
(the  unlearned  and  the  unbelieving)  are  not  so  distinguished 
that  the  same  person  might  not  belong  to  both  classes.  The 
same  persons  were  either  iSiomu  or  a7r«n-oi,  according  to  the 
aspect  under  which  they  were  viewed.  Viewed  in  relation  to 
the  languages  spoken,  they  were  unlearned ;  viewed  in  rela 
tion  to  Christianity,  they  were  unbelievers.  The  apostle  asks 
what  impression  such  persons,  in  the  case  supposed,  would  re 
ceive  ?  Would  they  not  say  ye  are  mad  f  John  12,  20.  Acts 
12, 15.  26,  24. 

24.  25.  But  if  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one 
that  believeth  not,  or  (one)  unlearned,  he  is  convinced 
of  all,  he  is  judged  of  all :  and  thus  are  the  secrets  of 
his  heart  made  manifest ;  and  so  falling  down  on  (his) 

13* 


298  r.  CORINTHIANS  14,  24.25. 

face  lie  will  worship  God,  and  report  that  God  is  in 
you  of  a  truth. 

This  is  another  part  of  the  inference  from  what  was  said  in 
vs.  21.  22.  Speaking  in  languages  unknown  to  the  hearers  is 
not  adapted  to  do  good;  speaking  intelligibly  is  suited  to 
produce  the  happiest  effects.  If  all  prophesy,  i.  e.  if  all  the 
speakers  speak  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  in  a  language 
which  the  hearers  can  understand.  If  one  that  believeth  not, 
or  one  unlearned.  From  these  words  it  is  manifest  that  the 
unlearned  were  not  Christians  as  distinguished  from  Jews  or 
Gentiles  here  called  unbelievers,  for  the  same  effect  is  said  to 
be  produced  on  both.  The  unlearned  were  therefore  as  much 
the  subjects  of  conversion  as  the  unbelieving.  The  meaning 
is,  if  any  person,  either  ignorant  or  destitute  of  faith,  should 
come  in,  he  would  be  convinced  by  all.  That  is,  wThat  he 
heard  from  all  would  carry  conviction  to  his  mind.  He  would 
be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  what  he  heard ;  convinced  of  sin, 
of  righteousness  and  of  judgment,  John  16,  8  ;  convinced  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  Acts  9,  20.  22 ; 
and  that  it  is  a  faithful  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  into  the  world  to  save  sinners,  1 
Tim.  1,  15.  lie  is  judged  of  all,  i.  e.  examined,  searched  into 
(avaKpLverai) ;  for  the  word  of  God  is  a  discerner  (/cpmKos)  of 
the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,  Heb.  4, 12.  The  result 
of  this  searching  examination  is,  that  the  secrets  of  his  heart 
are  made  manifest ;  that  is,  they  are  revealed  to  himself. 
His  real  character  and  moral  state,  with  regard  to  which  he 
was  before  ignorant,  are  made  known  to  him.  The  effect  of 
this  is  humility,  contrition,  self-condemnation,  and  turning 
unto  God.  This  is  expressed  by  saying,  so  i.  e.  in  this  con 
dition  of  a  convinced  sinner  who  has  been  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  himself,  falling  down  on  his  face,  he  will  wor 
ship  God.  The  first  step  in  religion  is  entire  self-abasement ; 
such  a  conviction  of  sin,  i.  e.  of  guilt  and  pollution,  as  shall 
lead  to  self-condemnation  and  self-abhorrence,  and  to  a  com 
plete  renunciation  of  all  dependence  on  our  own  righteousness 
and  strength.  When  the  soul  is  thus  humbled  God  reveals 
himself  sooner  or  later,  in  mercy,  manifesting  himself  as  recon 
ciled  in  Jesus  Christ ;  and  then  we  worship  him.  This  ex 
presses  reverence,  love  and  confidence.  It  is  the  return  of  the 
soul  to  the  favour  and  fellowship  of  God.  One  who  has  had 
such  an  experience  cannot  keep  it  to  himself.  The  apostle 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  24.25.  299 

therefore  describes  the  convert  as  declaring,  i.  e.  proclaiming 
aloud  that  God  is  in  you  of  a  truth.  "  With  the  heart  man 
believeth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession 
is  made  unto  salvation,"  Rom.  10,  10.  It  is  not  enough  to  be 
lieve  the  truth,  it  must  be  publicly  professed  ;  because  confes 
sion  is  the  natural  fruit  of  faith.  When  there  is  a  proper 
apprehension  of  the  value  of  the  truth,  and  a  sincere  appropri 
ation  of  the  promises  of  God  to  ourselves,  there  will  be  the 
desire  to  acknowledge  his  goodness  and  to  proclaim  the  truth 
to  others.  The  thing  acknowledged  is,  that  God  is  in  you, 
i.  e.  that  Christianity  is  divine  ;  that  Christians  are  not  deluded 
fanatics,  but  the  true  children  of  God,  in  whom  he  dwells 
by  his  Spirit.  The  convert  therefore  joins  himself  to  them  to 
share  their  fate,  to  take  part  in  whatever  of  reproach  or  per 
secution  falls  to  their  lot.  This  confession  is  made  with  confi 
dence.  Declaring  that  God  is  in  you  of  a  truth.  It  is  not  a 
mere  conjecture,  but  a  firm  conviction,  founded  on  experience, 
i.  e.  on  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit,  2,  4. 

Special  directions  as  to  the  mode  of  conducting  their  public 
assemblies,  vs.  26-40. 

The  apostle  concludes  this  chapter  with  certain  practical 
directions  derived  from  the  principles  which  he  had  laid  down. 
He  neither  denied  the  reality  of  the  extraordinary  gifts  with 
which  the  Corinthians  were  so  richly  endowed,  nor  forbade 
their  exercise.  He  only  enjoined  that  mutual  edification 
should  be  the  end  aimed  at,  v.  26.  With  regard  to  those 
having  the  gift  of  tongues,  he  directed  that  not  more  than 
two,  or  at  most  three,  should  speak,  and  that  in  succession, 
while  one  interpreted.  But  in  case  no  interpreter  was  present, 
there  was  to  be  no  speaking  with  tongues,  vs.  27.  28.  Of  the 
prophets  also  only  two  or  three  were  to  speak,  and  the  rest 
were  to  sit  in  judgment  on  what  was  said.  In  case  a  new 
revelation  was  made  to  one  of  the  prophets,  he  was  not  to  in 
terrupt  the  speaker,  but  wait  until  he  had  concluded  ;  or  the 
one  was  to  give  way  to  the  other.  Both  were  not  to  speak  at 
the  same  time,  for  God  did  not  approve  of  confusion.  As  the 
influence  of  which  the  prophets  were  the  subjects  did  not  de 
stroy  their  self-control,  there  could  be  no  difficulty  in  obeying 
this  injunction,  vs.  29-33.  Women  were  not  to  speak  in  pub 
lic  ;  but  to  seek  instruction  at  home.  This  prohibition  rests 
on  the  divinely  established  subordination  of  the  women,  and 


300  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  26. 

on  the  instinct  of  propriety,  vs.  34.  35.  The  Corinthians  were 
not  to  act  in  this  matter  as  though  they  were  the  oldest  or  the 
only  church,  v.  36.  The  apostle  requires  all  classes,  no  matter 
how  highly  gifted,  to  regard  his  directions  as  the  commands 
of  Christ,  vs.  37.  38.  He  sums  up  the  chapter  in  two  sen 
tences.  1.  Earnestly  to  seek  the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  not  to 
prohibit  the  exercise  of  the  gift  of  tongues.  2.  To  do  all 
things  with  decency  and  order. 

26.  How  is  it  then,  brethren  ?  when  ye  come  to 
gether,  every  one  of  you  hath  a  Psalm,  hath  a  doctrine, 
hath  a  tongue,  hath  a  revelation,  hath  an  interpretation. 
Let  all  things  be  done  unto  edifying. 

How  is  it  then?  i.  e.  as  in  v.  15,  What  is  the  conclusion 
from  what  has  been  said  ?  What  is  the  condition  of  things 
among  you  ?  How,  in  point  of  fact,  do  you  conduct  your 
public  worship  ?  When  ye  come  together. "  That  is,  as  often 
as  ye  come  together.  Every  one  of  you  hath,  &c.  Every 
one  is  used  distributively ;  one  has  this  and  another  that.  A 
psalm,  a  song  of  praise  to  God.  This  can  hardly  mean  one 
of  the  Psalms  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  something  prepared 
or  suggested  for  the  occasion.  One  was  impelled  by  the 
Spirit  to  pour  forth  his  heart  in  a  song  of  praise.  Comp.  v.  15. 
Hath  a  doctrine,  i.  e.  comes  prepared  to  expound  some  doc 
trine.  Hath  a  tongue,  i.  e.  is  able  and  impelled  to  deliver  an 
address  or  to  pray  in  an  unknown  tongue.  Hath  a  revelation, 
i.  e.  as  a  prophet  he  has  received  a  revelation  from  God  which 
he  desires  to  communicate.  Hath  an  interpretation,  i.  e.  is 
prepared  to  give  the  interpretation  of  some  discourse  previ 
ously  delivered  in  an  unknown  tongue.  This  passage,  and 
indeed  the  whole  chapter,  presents  a  lively  image  of  an  early 
Christian  assembly.  Although  there  were  officers  in  every 
church,  appointed  to  conduct  the  services  and  especially  to 
teach,  yet  as  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  not 
confined  to  them  or  to  any  particular  class,  any  member  pres 
ent  who  experienced  the  working  of  the  Spirit  in  any  of  its 
extraordinary  manifestations,  was  authorized  to  use  and  exer 
cise  his  gift.  Under  such  circumstances  confusion  could  hard 
ly  fail  to  ensue.  That  such  disorder  did  prevail  in  the  public 
assemblies  in  Corinth  is  clear  enough  from  this  chapter.  To 
correct  this  evil  is  the  apostle's  design  in  this  whole  passage. 
It  was  only  so  long  as  the  gifts  of  tongues,  of  prophecy,  of 


I.   CORINTHIANS   14,  26.27.28.29.30.      301 

miracles,  and  others  of  a  like  kind  continued  in  the  church 
that  the  state  of  things  here  described  prevailed.  Since  those 
gifts  have  ceased,  no  one  has  the  right  to  rise  in  the  church 
under  the  impulse  of  his  own  mind  to  take  part  in  its^  services. 
The  general  rule  which  the  apostle  lays  down,  applicable  to 
all  gifts  alike,  is  that  every  thing  should  be  done  tmto  edifying. 
That  is,  that  the  edification  of  the  church  should  be  the  object 
aimed  at  in  the  exercise  of  these  gifts.  It  was  not  enough 
that  a  man  felt  himself  the  subject  of  a  divine  influence;  or 
that  acting  under  it  would  be  agreeable  or  even  profitable  to 
himself,  he  must  sit  in  silence  unless  the  exercise  of  his  gift- 
would  benefit  the  brethren  as  a  worshipping  assembly. 

27.  If  any  man  speak  in  an  (unknown)  tongue, 
(let  it  be)  by  two,  or  at  the  most  (by)  three,  and  (that) 
by  course ;  and  let  one  interpret. 

As  to  the  use  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  the  directions  were 
that  only  two  or  three  having  that  gift  should  speak ;  that 
they  were  not  to  speak  together,  but  in  succession ;  and  that 
one  should  interpret  what  the  others  said. 

28.  But  if  there  be  no  interpreter,  let  him  keep 
silence  in  the  church ;  and  let  him  speak  to  himself, 
and  to  God. 

If  neither  the  speaker  himself,  nor  any  other  person  present, 
have  the  gift  of  interpretation,  the  former  was  to  keep  silence 
in  the  church,  i.  e.  in  the  public  assembly.  And  let  him  speak 
to  himself,  and  to  God,  or,  for  himself,  and  for  God.  That 
is,  let  him  commune  silently  with  God  in  the  exercise  of  his 
gift.  As,  according  to  Paul,  all  true  worship  is  intelligent,  it 
is  evident  that  if  in  the  exercise  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  there 
was  communion  with  God,  the  understanding  could  not  have 
been  in  abeyance.  In  that  gift,  not  only  the  words,  but  also 
the  thoughts  and  the  accompanying  emotion  were  communi 
cated  or  excited  by  the  Spirit.  Those  having  that  gift  spake 
as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance,  Acts  2,  4. 

29.  30.  Let  the  prophets  speak  two  or  three,  and 
let  the  others  judge.     If  (any  thing)  be  revealed  to 
another  that  sitteth  by,  let  the  first  hold  his  peace. 

The  number  of  prophets  who  were  to  speak  at  any  one 


302          I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  29.30.31.32. 

meeting  was  also  limited  to  two  or  three.  The  others  were 
to  judge,  i.  e.  exercise  the  gift  of  "  the  discerning  of  spirits," 
12,  10.  From  this  passage  it  may  be  inferred  that  this  latter 
gift  was  a  concomitant  of  the  gift  of  prophecy ;  for  the  other 
prophets,  i.  e.  those  who  did  not  speak  were  to  sit  in  judgment 
on  what  was  said,  in  order  to  decide  whether  those  claiming 
to  be  prophets  were  really  inspired.  The  case,  however, 
might  occur  that  a  communication  from  the  Spirit  might  be 
made  to  one  prophet  while  another  was  speaking.  What  was 
to  be  done  then  ?  As  it  was  contrary  to  order  for  two  to 
speak  at  the  same  time,  the  one  speaking  must  either  at  once 
stop,  or  the  receiver  of  the  new  revelation  must  wait  until  his 
predecessor  had  concluded  his  discourse.  The  imperative  form 
of  the  expression  (6  Trpwros  o-tyaro)),  let  the  first  be  silent,  is  in  fa 
vour  of  the  former  view.  This  would  suppose  that  the  fact 
of  a  new  communication  being  made,  indicated  that  it  was 
entitled  to  be  heard  at  once.  There  are  two  reasons,  how 
ever,  which  may  be  urged  for  the  second  view.  The  inter 
ruption  of  a  speaker  was  itself  disorderly,  and  therefore 
contrary  to  the  whole  drift  of  the  apostle's  directions ;  and 
secondly,  what  follows  is  most  naturally  understood  as  assign 
ing  the  reason  why  the  receiver  of  the  new  revelation  should 
wait.  The  meaning  may  be,  '  Let  the  first  be  silent  before  the 
other  begins? 

31.  For  ye  may  all  prophesy  one  by  one,  that  all 
may  learn,  and  all  may  be  comforted. 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  two  prophets  should 
not  speak  at  the  same  time.  They  could  all  have  the  oppor 
tunity  of  speaking  one  by  one.  Not  indeed  at  the  same  meet 
ing,  for  he  had  before  limited  the  number  of  speakers  to  two 
or  three  for  any  one  occasion.  That  all  may  learn,  and  all 
may  be  comforted.  This  is  the  end  to  be  attained  by  their 
all  speaking.  The  discourse  of  one  might  suit  the  wants  of 
some  hearers ;  and  that  of  another  might  be  adapted  to  the 
case  of  others.  Thus  all  hearers  would  receive  instruction 
and  consolation.  The  latter  word  (consolation) ,  however,  is 
not  so  comprehensive  as  the  original,  which  means  not  only  to 
comfort,  but  also  to  exhort  and  to  admonish. 

32.  And  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to 
the  prophets. 


I.   CORINTHIANS   14,  32.33.  303 

This  verse  is  connected  by  and  to  the  preceding  as  con 
taining  an  additional  reason  for  the  injunction  in  v.  31.  '  You 
need  not  speak  together,  because  you  can  all  have  the  oppor 
tunity  of  speaking  successively,  and  you  are  not  compelled  to 
speak  by  any  irresistible  impulse.'  The  spirits  of  the  prophets. 
The  word  spirit  is  used  here  (comp.  vs.  12.  14.  15)  for  the  di 
vine  influence  under  which  the  prophets  spoke.  That  influ 
ence  was  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  destroy  the  self-control  of 
those  who  were  its  subjects.  It  did  not  throw  them  into  a 
state  of  frenzy  analogous  to  that  of  a  heathen  pythoness.  The 
prophets  of  God  were  calm  and  self-possessed.  This  being  the 
case,  there  was  no  necessity  why  one  should  interrupt  another, 
or  why  more  than  one  should  speak  at  the  same  time.  The 
one  speaking  could  stop  when  he  pleased ;  and  the  one  who 
received  a  revelation  could  wait  as  long  as  he  pleased.  The 
spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets,  i.  e.  under 
their  control.  According  to  another  interpretation  the  spirits 
of  the  prophets  means  their  own  spirits  (or  minds),  considered 
as  the  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  this  is  contrary  to  the 
use  of  the  word  in  the  context ;  and  moreover  it  is  inconsist 
ent  with  the  sense  assigned  to  the  word  by  the  advocates  of 
this  interpretation.  They  say  that  spirit  means  the  higher 
powers  of  the  mind  in  distinction  from  the  understanding.  In 
this  sense  every  man,  whether  the  subject  of  divine  influence 
or  not,  has  a  spirit.  In  other  words,  according  to  their  theory 
it  is  not  because  the  higher  powers  of  the  mind  are  the  organs 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  that  they  are  called  spirits.  It  is  there 
fore  inconsistent  to  assign  that  reason  for  the  use  of  the  word 
here.  The  interpretation  above  given  of  this  verse  is  the  one 
commonly  adopted.  Many  commentators,  however,  under 
stand  the  apostle  to  say,  that  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are 
subject  to  one  another,  i.  e.  to  other  prophets ;  and  therefore 
if  one  is  speaking  he  should  yield  to  another  who  wishes  to 
speak.  This  idea  is  not  suited  to  the  context.  It  would  sug 
gest  merely  a  reason  why  one  ought  to  yield  to  the  other. 
What  the  apostle  says  and  wishes  to  prove  is,  that  one  can 
yield  to  the  other.  A  prophet  was  not  forced  to  speak  by  the 
spirit  which  he  had  received. 

33.  For  God  is  not  (the  author)  of  confusion,  but 
of  peace,  as  in  all  churches  of  the  saints. 

This  is  the  reason  why  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  must  be 


304  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  33.34. 

assumed  lo  be  subject  to  the  prophets.  They  are  from  God; 
but  God  is  not  a  God  of  disorder  or  of  commotion,  but  of  peace. 
Therefore  every  spirit  which  is  from  him,  must  be  capable  of 
control.  He  never  impels  men  to  act  contrary  to  the  princi 
ples  which  he  has  ordained.  If  he  wills  order  to  prevail  in 
the  church,  he  never  impels  men  to  be  disorderly.  This  is  a 
truth  of  wide  application.  When  men  pretend  to  be  influ 
enced  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  doing  what  God  forbids,  whether 
in  disturbing  the  peace  and  order  of  the  church,  by  insubordi 
nation,  violence  or  abuse,  or  in  any  other  way,  we  may  be 
sure  that  they  are  either  deluded  or  impostors. 

34.  Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the  churches  : 
for  it  is  not  permitted  unto  them  to  speak  •  but  (they 
are  commanded)  to  be  under  obedience,  as  also  saith 
the  law. 

The  words  as  in  all  the  churches  of  the  saints,  if  connect 
ed  with  verse  33,  contain  a  proof  of  what  had  just  been  said. 
'  I  may  appeal  to  all  the  churches  of  the  saints  in  proof  that 
God  is  the  God  not  of  commotion,  but  of  peace.'  Most  com 
mentators,  however,  connect  them  with  v.  34.  'As  in  all  the 
churches  of  the  saints,  let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the 
churches ;  for  it  is  not  permitted  to  them  to  speak ;  but  they 
are  commanded  to  be  under  obedience,  as  also  saith  the  law.' 
The  reasons  for  preferring  this  connection  are,  1.  That  verse 
33  has  an  appropriate  conclusion  in  the  words  "  God  is  not  a 
God  of  confusion  but  of  peace."  2.  The  words  as  in  all  the 
churches  of  the  saints,  if  connected  with  v.  33,  do  not  give  a 
pertinent  sense.  The  apostle  would  be  made  to  prove  a  con 
ceded  and  undeniable  truth  by  an  appeal  to  the  authority  or 
experience  of  the  church.  3.  If  connected  with  v.  34,  this 
passage  is  parallel  to  11, 16,  where  the  custom  of  the  churches 
in  reference  to  the  deportment  of  women  in  public  is  appealed 
to  as  authoritative.  The  sense  is  thus  pertinent  and  good. 
4  As  is  the  case  in  all  other  Christian  churches,  let  your  women 
keep  silence  in  the  public  assemblies.'  The  fact  that  in  no 
Christian  church  was  public  speaking  permitted  to  women 
was  itself  a  strong  proof  that  it  was  unchristian,  i.  e.  contrary 
to  the  spirit  of  Christianity.  Paul,  however,  adds  to  the  pro 
hibition  the  weight  of  apostolic  authority,  and  not  of  that  only 
but  also  the  authority  of  reason  and  of  Scripture.  It  is  not 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  34.35.36.  305 

permitted  to  them  to  speak.  The  speaking  intended  is  public 
speaking,  and  especially  in  the  church.  In  the  Old  Testament 
it  had  been  predicted  that  "  Your  sons  and  your  daughters 
shall  prophesy ; "  a  prediction  which  the  apostle  Peter  quotes 
as  verified  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Acts  2,17;  and  in  Acts 
21,  9  mention  is  made  of  four  daughters  of  Philip  who  prophe 
sied.  The  apostle  himself  seems  to  take  for  granted,  in  11,  5, 
that  women  might  receive  and  exercise  the  gift  of  prophecy. 
It  is  therefore  only  the  public  exercise  of  the  gift  that  is  pro 
hibited.  The  rational  ground  for  this  prohibition  is  that  it  is 
contrary  to  the  relation  of  subordination  in  which  the  woman 
stands  to  the  man  that  she  appear  as  a  public  teacher.  Both 
the  Jews  and  Greeks  adopted  the  same  rule ;  and  therefore 
the  custom,  which  the  Corinthians  seemed  disposed  to  intro 
duce,  was  contrary  to  established  usage.  The  scriptural 
ground  is  expressed  in  the  words  as  also  saith  the  law,  i.  e. 
the  will  of  God  as  made  known  in  the  Old  Testament.  There, 
as  well  as  in  the  New  Testament,  the  doctrine  that  women 
should  be  in  subjection  is  clearly  revealed. 

35.  And  if  they  will  learn  any  thing,  let  them  ask 
their  husbands  at  home :  for  it  is  a  shame  for  women 
to  speak  in  the  church. 

The  desire  for  knowledge  in  women  is  not  to  be  repressed, 
and  the  facilities  for  its  acquisition  are  not  to  be  denied  them. 
The  refinement  and  delicacy  of  their  sex,  however,  should  be 
carefully  preserved.  They  may  learn  all  they  wish  to  know 
without  appearing  before  the  public.  For  it  is  a  shame  for 
women  to  speak  in  the  church.  The  word  used  is  alaxp°s-> 
which  properly  means  ugly,  deformed.  It  is  spoken  of  any 
thing  which  excites  disgust.  As  the  peculiar  power  and  use 
fulness  of  women  depend  on  their  being  the  objects  of  admira 
tion  and  affection,  any  thing  which  tends  to  excite  the  oppo 
site  sentiments  should  for  that  reason  be  avoided. 

36.  What!  came  the  word  of  God  out  from  you? 
or  came  it  unto  you  only  ? 

That  is,  Are  you  the  mother  church  ?  or  are  you  the  only 
church?  The  word  of  God  here  means  the  gospel.  Paul 
means  to  ask,  whether  the  gospel  took  its  rise  in  Corinth  ? 


306  I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  36.37. 

The  disregard  which  the  people  of  that  church  manifested  for 
the  customs  of  their  sister  churches  seemed  to  evince  an  as 
suming  and  arrogant  temper.  They  acted  as  though  they 
were  entitled  to  be  independent,  if  not  to  prescribe  ^the  law 
to  others.  Paul  takes  the  authority  of  the  church  for  grant 
ed.  He  assumes  that  any  thing  contrary  to  the  general  senti 
ment  and  practice  of  the  people  of  God  is  wrong.  This  he 
does  because  he  understands  by  the  church  the  body  of  Christ, 
those  in  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells,  and  whose  character 
and  conduct  are  controlled  and  governed  by  his  influence. 

37.  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or 
spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I 
write  unto  you  are  the  commandments  of  the  Lord. 

If  any  man  think,  &c.  That  is,  If  any  man,  with  or  with 
out  just  reason,  assumes  to  be  a  prophet,  i.  e.  inspired ;  or 
spiritual,  i.  e.  the  possessor  of  any  gift  of  the  Spirit,  let  him 
prove  himself  what  he  claims  to  be  by  submitting  to  my  au 
thority.  Here,  as  in  1  John  4,  6,  ("  He  that  knoweth  God, 
heareth  us ;  he  that  is  not  of  God,  heareth  not  us,")  submission 
to  the  infallible  authority  of  the  apostles  is  made  the  test  of  a 
divine  mission  and  even  of  conversion.  This  must  be  so.  If 
the  apostles  were  the  infallible  organs  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
disobey  them  in  any  matter  of  faith  or  practice  is  to  refuse 
to  obey  God.  The  inference  which  Romanists  draw  from  this 
fact  is,  that  as  the  apostleship  is  a  permanent  office  in  the 
church,  and  as  the  prelates  are  the  bearers  of  that  office,  there 
fore  to  refuse  submission  in  matters  of  faith  or  practice  to  the 
bishops  is  a  clear  proof  that  we  are  not  of  God.  This  is  the 
chain  with  which  Rome  binds  the  nations  to  her  car  which 
she  drives  whithersoever  she  wills.  The  inference  which  Pro 
testants  draw  from  the  fact  in  question  is,  that  as  we  have 
the  infallible  teaching  of  the  prophets  and  apostles  in  the 
Bible,  therefore  any  man  who  does  not  conform  in  faith  and 
practice  to  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  of  God.  This  is  the  rule 
by  which  Protestants  try  all  who  claim  to  have  a  divine  com 
mission.  It  is  nothing  to  them  what  their  ecclesiastical  descent 
may  be.  He  that  heareth  not  the  Scriptures,  is  not  of  God. 
The  things  which  I  write.  There  is  not  only  no  reason  for 
confining  these  words,  as  some  do,  to  the  preceding  verse,  but 
every  reason  against  it.  It  is  not  merely  for  the  prohibition 
against  women  speaking  in  the  church  for  which  the  apostle 


I.  CORINTHIANS  14,  37.38.39.40.         307 

claims  divine  authority.  The  specification  of  prophets  and 
spiritual  persons  shows  that  the  reference  is  primarily  to  the 
whole  contents  of  this  chapter.  All  the  directions  which  he 
had  given  with  respect  to  the  exercise  of  spiritual  gifts  were 
of  divine  authority.  What  is  true,  however,  of  this  chapter, 
is  no  less  true  of  all  apostolical  instructions ;  because  they  all 
rest  on  the  same  foundation.  Are  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord,  i.  e.  of  Christ,  because  he  is  the  person  known  in  the 
Christian  church  as  Lord.  The  continued  influence  of  Christ 
by  the  Spirit  over  the  minds  of  his  apostles,  which  is  a  divine 
prerogative,  is  here  assumed  or  asserted. 

38.  But  if  any  man  be  ignorant,  let  him  be  ig 
norant. 

That  is,  if  any  man  be  ignorant  or  refuses  to  acknowledge 
the  divine  authority  of  my  instructions,  let  him  be  ignorant. 
Paul  would  neither  attempt  to  convince  him,  nor  waste  time 
in  disputing  the  point.  Where  the  evidence  of  any  truth  is 
abundant  and  has  been  clearly  presented,  those  who  reject  it 
should  be  left  to  act  on  their  own  responsibility.  Further 
disputation  can  do  no  good. 

39.  Wherefore,  brethren,  covet  to  prophesy,  and 
forbid  not  to  speak  with  tongues. 

Prophecy  and  the  gift  of  tongues  are  the  two  gifts  of  which 
this  chapter  treats.  The  former  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  lat 
ter.  The  one  is  to  be  coveted,  i.  e.  earnestly  desired  and 
sought  after ;  the  exercise  of  the  other,  even  in  Christian  as 
semblies,  was  not  to  be  prohibited  ;  provided,  as  stated  above, 
any  one  be  present  who  possessed  the  gift  of  interpretation. 

40.  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order. 

Decently,  i.  e.  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  offend  against  pro 
priety.  The  adjective,  the  adverbial  form  of  which  is  here 
used,  means  'well-formed,  comely  ;  that  which  excites  the 
pleasing  emotion  of  beauty.  The  exhortation  therefore  is,  so 
to  conduct  their  worship  that  it  may  be  beautiful ;  in  other 
words,  so  as  to  make  a  pleasing  impression  on  all  who  are 
right-minded.  And  in  order  (Kara  ra£a/),  not  tumultuously  as 
in  a  mob,  but  as  in  a  well-ordered  army,  where  every  one 


308  I.  CORINTHIAN'S  14,40.   15. 

keeps  his  place,  and  acts  at  the  proper  time  and  in  the  proper 
way.  So  far  as  external  matters  are  concerned,  these  are  the 
two  principles  which  should  regulate  the  conduct  of  public 
worship.  The  apostle  not  only  condemns  any  church  acting 
independently  of  other  churches,  but  also  any  member  of  a 
particular  church  acting  from  his  own  impulses,  without  re 
gard  to  others.  The  church  as  a  whole,  and  in  every  separate 
congregation,  should  be  a  harmonious,  well-organized  body. 


CHAPTER  XY. 

The,  Resurrection  of  the  Dead. 

In  treating  this  subject  the  apostle  first  proves  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection, 
vs.  1-11.  He  thence  deduces,  first,  the  possibility,  and  then  the  certainty 
of  the  resurrection  of  his  people,  vs.  12-34.  He  afterwards  teaches  the  na 
ture  of  the  resurrection,  so  far  as  to  show  that  the  doctrine  is  not  liable  to 
the  objections  which  had  been  brought  against  it,  vs.  35-58. 

The  Resurrection  of  Christ  as  securing  the  Resurrection  of 
his  People,  vs.  1-34. 

THAT  certain  false  teachers  in  Corinth  denied  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  is  plain,  not  only  from  the  course  of  argument  here 
adopted  but  from  the  explicit  statement  in  v.  12.  Who  these 
persons  were,  and  what  were  the  grounds  of  their  objections, 
can  only  be  conjectured  from  the  nature  of  the  apostolic  ar 
gument.  The  most  common  opinion  is  that  the  objectors 
were  converted  Sadducees.  The  only  reason  for  this  opinion 
is  that  the  Sadducees  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
and  that  Paul,  as  appears  from  Acts  24,  6-9  and  26,  6-8,  had 
been  before  brought  into  collision  with  them  on  this  subject. 
The  objections  to  this  view  are  of  no  great  weight.  It  is  said 
that  such  was  the  hostility  of  the  Sadducees  to  the  gospel  that 
it  is  not  probable  any  of  their  number  were  among  the  con 
verts  to  Christianity.  The  case  of  Paul  himself  proves  that 
the  bitterest  enemies  could,  by  the  grace  of  God,  be  convert 
ed  into  friends.  It  is  further  objected  that  Paul  could  not,  in 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15.  309 

argument  with  Sadducees,  make  the  resurrection  of  Christ  the 
'basis  of  his  proof.  But  he  does  not  assume  that  fact  as  con 
ceded,  but  proves  it  by  an  array  of  the  testimony  by  which  it 
was  supported.  Others  suppose  that  the  opponents  of  the 
doctrine  were  Epicureans.  There  is,  however,  no  indication 
of  their  peculiar  opinions  in  the  chapter.  In  v.  32  Epicurean 
carelessness  and  indulgence  are  represented  as  the  conse 
quence,  not  the  cause,  of  the  denial  of  the  resurrection.  No 
thing  more  definite  can  be  arrived  at  on  this  point  than  the 
conjecture  that  the  false  teachers  in  question  were  men  of 
Grecian  culture.  In  Acts  IT,  32  it  is  said  of  the  Athenians 
that  "  some  mocked  "  when  they  heard  Paul  preach  the  doc 
trine  of  the  resurrection.  From  the  character  of  the  objec 
tions  answered  in  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter,  vs.  35-58,  it 
is  probable  that  the  objections  urged  against  the  doctrine 
were  founded  on  the  assumption  that  a  material  organization 
was  unsuited  to  the  future  state.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  ori 
ental  philosophy,  which  assumed  that  matter  was  the  source 
and  seat  of  evil,  had  produced  an  effect  on  the  minds  of  these 
Corinthian  sceptics  as  well  as  on  the  Christians  of  Colosse. 
The  decision  of  the  question  as  to  what  particular  class  of  per 
sons  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  belonged, 
happily  is  of  no  importance  in  the  interpretation  of  the  apos 
tle's  argument.  As  in  2  Tim.  2, 17. 18  he  speaks  of  Hymeneus 
and  Philetus  as  teaching  that  the  resurrection  was  passed  al 
ready,  it  is  probable  that  these  errorists  in  Corinth  also  refused 
to  acknowledge  any  other  than  a  spiritual  resurrection. 

After  reminding  the  Corinthians  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  was  a  primary  principle  of  the  gospel,  which  he 
had  preached  to  them,  and  on  which  their  salvation  depended, 
vs.  1-3,  he  proceeds  to  assert  and  prove  the  fact  that  Christ 
rose  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day.  This  event  had  been 
predicted  in  the  Old  Testament.  Its  actual  occurrence  is 
proved,  1.  By  Christ  appearing  after  his  resurrection,  first  to 
Peter  and  then  to  the  twelve.  2.  By  his  appearing  to  upward 
of  five  hundred  brethren  at  one  time,  most  of  whom  were 
still  alive.  3.  By  a  separate  appearance  to  James.  4.  And 
then  again  to  all  the  apostles.  5.  Finally  by  his  appearance 
to  Paul  himself.  There  never  was  a  historical  event  estab 
lished  on  surer  evidence  than  that  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
vs.  4-8.  This  fact,  therefore,  was  included  in  the  preaching 
of  all  the  apostles,  and  in  the  faith  of  all  Christians,  v.  11. 
But  if  this  be  so,  how  can  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  be 


310  I.  CORINTHIANS    15,  1.2. 

denied  by  any  who  pretend  to  be  Christians  ?  To  deny  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  is  to  deny  the  resurrection  of  Christ ; 
and  to  deny  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  to  subvert  the  gos 
pel,  vs.  12-14;  and  also  to  make  the  apostles  false  witnesses, 
v.  15.  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  our  faith  is  vain,  we  are  yet  in 
our  sins,  those  dead  in  Christ  are  perished,  and  all  the  hopes 
of  Christians  are  destroyed,  vs.  16-19.  But  if  Christ  be  risen, 
then  his  people  will  also  rise,  because  he  rose  as  a  pledge  of 
their  resurrection.  As  Adam  was  the  cause  of  death,  so  Christ 
is  the  cause  of  life ;  Adam  secured  the  death  of  all  who  are  in 
him,  and  Christ  secures  the  life  of  all  who  are  in  him,  vs.  20-22. 
Although  the  resurrection  of  Christ  secures  the  resurrection 
of  his  people,  the  two  events  are  not  contemporaneous.  Christ 
rose  first,  his  people  are  to  rise  when  he  comes  the  second 
time.  Then  is  to  be  the  final  consummation,  when  Christ 
shall  deliver  up  his  providential  kingdom  as  mediator  to  the 
Father,  after  all  his  enemies  are  subdued,  vs.  23.  24.  It  is 
necessary  that  Christ's  dominion  over  the  universe,  to  which 
he  was  exalted  after  his  resurrection,  should  continue  until  his 
great  work  of  subduing  or  restraining  evil  was  accomplished. 
When  that  is  done,  then  the  Son  (the  Theanthropos,  the  In 
carnate  Logos),  will  be  subject  to  the  Father,  and  God  as 
God,  and  not  as  Mediator,  reign  supreme,  25-28. 

Besides  the  arguments  already  urged,  there  are  two  other 
considerations  which  prove  the  truth  or  importance  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  "resurrection.  The  first  is,  "  the  baptism  for 
the  dead"  (whatever  that  means)  prevailing  in  Corinth,  as 
sumes  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  v.  29.  The  other  is,  the  inti 
mate  connection  between  this  doctrine  and  that  of  a  future 
state  is  such,  that  if  the  one  be  denied,  the  other  cannot,  in  a 
Christian  sense,  be  maintained.  If  there  be  no  resurrection, 
there  is  for  Christians  no  hereafter,  and  they  may  act  on  the 
principle,  "  Let  us  eat  and  drink  for  to-morrow  we  die,"  vs. 
30-32.  The  apostle  concludes  this  part  of  the  subject  by 
warning  his  readers  against  the  corrupting  influence  of  evil  as 
sociations.  Whence  it  is  probable  that  the  denial  of  the  doc 
trine  had  already  produced  the  evil  effects  referred  to  among 
those  who  rejected  it,  vs.  33.  34. 

1.2.  Moreover,  brethren,  I  declare  unto  you  the 
gospel  which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  also  ye  have 
received,  and  wherein  ye  stand ;  by  which  also  ye  are 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  1.2.  311 

saved,  if  ye  keep  in  memory  what  I  have  preached  unto 
you,  unless  ye  have  believed  in  vain. 

There  is  no  connection  between  this  and  the  preceding 
chapter.  The  particle  Se,  rendered  moreover,  indicates  the  in 
troduction  of  a  new  subject.  I  declare  unto  (yi/wp^w),  literal 
ly,  I  make  known  to  you,  as  though  they  had  never  heard  it 
before.  4  Moreover,  brethren,  I  proclaim  to  you  the  gospel.' 
This  interpretation  is  more  consistent  with  the  signification 
of  the  word,  and  more  impressive  than  the  rendering  adopted 
by  many,  4 1  remind  you.'  Comp.  however,  12,  3.  2  Cor.  8,  1. 
Of  this  gospel  Paul  says,  1.  That  he  had  preached  it.  2.  They 
had  received  it,  i.  e.  embraced  it  as  true.  3.  That  they  then 
professed  it.  They  still  stood  firm  in  their  adherence  to  the 
truth.  It  was  not  the  Corinthians  as  a  body,  but  only  "  some 
among  them,"  v.  12,  who  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec 
tion.  4.  That  by  it  they  are  saved.  The  present  tense  is 
used  to  express  either  the  certainty  of  the  event,  or  the  idea 
that  believers  are  in  this  life  partakers  of  salvation.  They  are 
already  saved.  There  is  to  them  no  condemnation.  They  are 
renewed  and  made  partakers  of  spiritual  life.  Their  salvation, 
however,  is  conditioned  on  their  perseverance.  If  they  do  not 
persevere,  they  will  not  only  fail  of  the  consummation  of  the 
work  of  salvation,  but  it  becomes  manifest  that  they  never 
were  justified  or  renewed.  4  Ye  are  saved  (et  Kare^e-re)  if  ye 
hold  fast:  The  word  does  not  mean,  if  ye  keep  in  memory. 
It  simply  means,  if  ye  holdfast;  whether  that  be  by  a  physi 
cal  holding  fast  with  the  hand,  or  a  retaining  in  the  memory, 
or  a  retaining  in  faith,  depends  on  the  connection.  Here  it  is 
evident  that  the  condition  of  salvation  is  not  retaining  in  the 
memory,  but  persevering  in  the  faith.  'The  gospel  saves 
you,'  says  the  apostle,  '  if  you  hold  fast  the  gospel  which  I 
preached  unto  you.' 

The  only  difficulty  in  the  passage  relates  to  the  words  rivi 
Xoyo),  literally,  with  what  discourse  ;  which  in  our  version  is 
expressed  by  the  word  what.  This  may  express  the  true 
sense.  The  idea  is,  'If  you  hold  fast  to  the  gospel  as  I 
preached  it  to  you.'  The  principal  objection  to  this  interpre 
tation  ^is  the  position  of  the  words.  The  order  in  which  they 
stand  is,  '  With  what  discourse  I  preached  unto  you  if  ye  hold 
fast.'  The  interpretation  just  mentioned  reverses  this  order. 
This  clause  is  therefore  by  many  connected  with  the  first 
words  of  the  chapter.  '  I  bring  to  your  knowledge,  brethren, 


312  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  1.2.3. 

the  gospel  which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  ye  received, 
wherein  ye  stand,  by  which  ye  are  saved,  (I  bring  to  your 
knowledge,  I  say,)  how,  qua  ratione,  I  preached,  if  ye  hold 
fast.'  This,  however,  breaks  the  connection.  It  is,  therefore, 
better  to  consider  the  words  rivi  Adyu>  as  placed  first  for  the 
sake  of  emphasis.  '  You  are  saved  if  you  hold  fast  (the  gos 
pel)  as  I  preached  it  to  you.'  Unless  ye  have  believed  in  vain. 
The  word  CIKT},  in  vain,  may  mean  either  without  cause,  Gal. 
2,  18,  or  without  effect,  i.  e.  to  no  purpose,  Gal.  3,  4.  4, 11.  If 
the  former,  then  Paul  means  to  say,  4  Unless  ye  believed  with 
out  evidence,  i.  e.  had  no  ground  for  your  faith.'  If  the  latter, 
the  meaning  is,  '  Unless  your  faith  is  worthless.'  The  clause 
may  be  connected  with  the  preceding  words,  '  If  ye  hold  fast, 
which  ye  do,  or  will  do,  unless  ye  believed  without  cause.' 
The  better  connection  is  with  the  words  ye  are  saved,  &c. 
4  Ye  are  saved,  if  ye  persevere,  unless  indeed  faith  is  worth 
less.'  If,  as  the  errorists  in  Corinth  taught,  there  is  no  resur 
rection,  Paul  says,  v.  14,  our  faith  is  vain;  it  is  an  empty, 
worthless  thing.  So  here  he  says,  the  gospel  secures  salvation, 
unless  faith  be  of  no  account. 

3.  For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which 
I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  ac 
cording  to  the  Scriptures  : 

For  introduces  the  explanation  of c  what  he  had  preached.' 
I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  ally  first,  not  in  reference  to 
time ;  \\Qvfirst  to  the  Corinthians,  which  would  not  be  histori 
cally  true,  as  Paul  did  not  preach  first  at  Corinth ;  but  eV  Trpw- 
TOCS  means,  among  the  first,  or  principal  things.  The  death 
of  Christ  for  our  sins  and  his  resurrection  were  therefore  the 
great  facts  on  which  Paul  insisted  as  the  foundation  of  the 

gospel.  Which  also  I  received,  i.  e.  by  direct  revelation  from 
hrist  himself.  Comp.  11,  23.  Gal.  1, 12.  "I  did  not  receive 
it  (the  gospel)  from  man,  neither  was  I  taught  it ;  but  by 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  apostle,  therefore,  could 
speak  with  infallible  confidence,  both  as  to  what  the  gospel  is 
and  as  to  its  truth.  That  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  i.  e.  as  a 
sacrifice  or  propitiation  for  our  sins.  Comp.  Rom.  3,  23-26. 
Some  commentators  remark  that  as  vvrep  a^apri^v,  for  sin,  can 
not  mean  in  the  place  of  sin,  therefore  v-n-ep  ^/AUJV,  for  us,  cannot 
mean  in  our  place.  This  remark,  however,  has  no  more  force 
in  reference  to  the  Greek  preposition,  virip,  than  it  has  in  rela- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  3.4.  313 

tion  to  the  English  preposition,  for.  Whether  the  phrase,  to 
die  for  any  one,  means  to  die  for  his  benefit,  or  in  his  place,  is 
determined  by  the  connection.  It  may  mean  either  or  both ; 
and  the  same  is  true  of  the  corresponding  scriptural  phrase. 

According  to  the  Scriptures,  i.  e.  the  fact  that  the  Messiah 
was  to  die  as  a  propitiation  for  sin  had  been  revealed  in  the 
Old  Testament.  That  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  atoning  sacri 
fice  was  predicted  by  the  law  and  the  prophets  is  the  constant 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament.  Our  Lord  reproved  his  dis 
ciples  for  not  believing  what  the  prophets  had  spoken  on  this 
subject,  Luke  24,  25.  26.  Paul  protested  before  Festus,  that 
in  preaching  the  gospel  he  had  said  "  none  other  things  than 
those  which  Moses  and  the  prophets  say  should  come ;  that 
Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  he  should  be  the  first  that  should 
rise  from  the  dead,  and  should  show  light  unto  the  people,  and 
to  the  Gentiles,"  Acts  26,  22.  23.  He  assured  the  Romans 
that  his  gospel  was  "witnessed  (to)  by  the  law  and  the 
prophets,"  Rom.  3.  21.  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  an  ex 
position  of  the  whole  Mosaic  service  as  a  prefiguration  of  the 
office  and  work  of  Christ.  And  the  fifty-third  chapter  of 
Isaiah  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  New  Testament  exhibitions 
of  a  suffering  and  atoning  Messiah.  Paul  and  all  other  faith 
ful  ministers  of  the  gospel,  therefore,  teach  that  atonement  for 
sin,  by  the  death  of  Christ,  is  the  great  doctrine  of  the  whole 
word  of  God. 

4.  And  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again 
the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures  : 

There  are  two  things  taught  in  this,  as  in  the  preceding 
verse.  First,  the  truth  of  the  facts  referred  to ;  and  secondly, 
that  those  facts  had  been  predicted.  It  is  true  that  Christ 
was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again  on  the  third  day.  These 
facts  were  included  in  the  revelation  made  to  Paul,  and  the 
truth  of  which  he  proceeds  to  confirm  by  abundant  additional 
testimony.  That  these  facts  were  predicted  in  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  is  taught  in  John  20,  9.  Acts  26,  23.  The  passage  espe 
cially  urged  by  the  apostles  as  foretelling  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  is  Ps.  16, 10.  Peter  proves  that  that  Psalm  cannot  be 
understood  of  David,  because  his  body  was  allowed  to  see  cor 
ruption.  It  must,  he  says,  be  understood  of  Christ,  who  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  and  "saw  no  corruption,"  Acts  13,  34- 
37.  The  prophetic  Scriptures,  however,  are  full  of  this  doc- 
14 


314  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  4.5. 

trine ;  for  on  the  one  hand  they  predict  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  the  Messiah,  and  on  the  other  his  universal  and  per 
petual  dominion.  It  is  only  on  the  assumption  that^he  was  to 
rise  from  the  dead  that  these  two  classes  of  prediction  can  be 
reconciled. 

5.  And  that  he  was  seen  of  Cephas,  then  of  the 
twelve  : 

As  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  an  historical  fact,  it  is  to 
be  proved  by  historical  evidence.  The  apostle  therefore  ap 
peals  to  the  testimony  of  competent  witnesses.  All  human 
laws  assume  that  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses,  when  uncon- 
tradicted,  and  especially  when  confirmed  by  collateral  evidence, 
produces  such  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  fact  asserted  as  to 
justify  even  taking  the  life  of  a  fellow-creature.  Confidence 
in  such  testimony  is  not  founded  on  experience,  but  on  the 
constitution  of  our  nature.  We  are  so  constituted  that  we 
cannot  refuse  assent  to  the  testimony  of  good  men  to  a  fact 
fairly  within  their  knowledge.  To  render  such  testimony  irre 
sistible  it  is  necessary,  1.  That  the  fact  to  be  proved  should  be 
of  a  nature  to  admit  of  being  certainly  known.  2.  That  ade 
quate  opportunity  be  afforded  to  the  witnesses  to  ascertain  its 
nature,  and  to  be  satisfied  of  its  verity.  3.  That  the  witnesses 
be  of  sound  mind  and  discretion.  4.  That  they  be  men  of  in 
tegrity.  If  these  conditions  be  fulfilled,  human  testimony 
establishes  the  truth  of  a  fact  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  If, 
however,  in  addition  to  these  grounds  of  confidence,  the  wit 
nesses  give  their  testimony  at  the  expense  of  great  personal 
sacrifice,  or  confirm  it  with  their  blood ;  if,  moreover,  the  oc 
currence  of  the  fact  in  question  had  been  predicted  centuries 
before  it  came  to  pass ;  if  it  had  produced  effects  not  otherwise 
to  be  accounted  for,  effects  extending  to  all  ages  and  nations ; 
if  the  system  of  doctrine  with  which  that  fact  is  connected  so 
as  to  be  implied  in  it,  commends  itself  as  true  to  the  reason 
and  conscience  of  men ;  and  if  God  confirms  not  only  the  testi 
mony  of  the  original  witnesses  to  the  fact,  but  also  the  truth 
of  the  doctrines  of  which  that  fact  is  the  necessary  basis,  by 
the  demonstration  of  his  Spirit,  then  it  is  insanity  and  wicked* 
ness  to  doubt  it.  All  these  considerations  concur  in  proof  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  render  it  the  best  authenticated 
event  in  the  history  of  the  world. 

The  apostle  does  not  refer  to  all  the  manifestations  of  our 


I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  5.6.  315 

Lord  after  his  resurrection,  but  selects  a  few  which  he  details 
in  the  order  of  their  occurrence.  The  first  appearance  men 
tioned  is  that  to  Cephas ;  see  Luke  24,  34.  The  second  oc 
curred  on  the  same  day  "  to  the  eleven  and  those  who  were 
with  them,"  Luke  24,  33-36.  To  this  Paul  refers  by  saying, 
"_  then  to  the  twelve ;  "  comp.  also  John  20,  19.  On  this  occa 
sion,  when  the  disciples  were  terrified  by  his  sudden  appear 
ance  in  the  midst  of  them,  he  said,  "  Why  are  ye  troubled  ? 
and  why  do  thoughts  arise  in  your  hearts  ?  Behold  my  hands 
and^  my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself:  handle  me,  and  see ;  for  a 
spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have.  And  when 
he  had  thus  spoken,  he  showed  them  his  hands  and  his  feet." 
Luke  24,  38-40.  The  apostles  collectively,  after  the  apostasy 
of  Judas,  are  spoken  of  as  the  twelve  according  to  a  common 
usage,  although  at  the  time  there  were  only  eleven. 

6.  After  that,  he  was  seen  of  above  five  hundred 
brethren  at  once ;  of  whom  the  greater  part  remain 
unto  this  present,  but  some  are  fallen  asleep. 

There  is  no  distinct  record  of  this  event  in  the  evangelical 
history.  It  may  have  taken  place  on  the  occasion  when  Christ 
met  his  disciples  in  Galilee.  Before  his  death  he  told  them, 
"  After  I  am  risen  again,  I  will  go  before  you  into  Galilee," 
Matt.  26,  32.  Early  in  the  morning  of  his  resurrection  he  met 
the  women  who  had  been  at  his  tomb,  and  said  to  them,  "  Be 
not  afraid  ;  go  tell  my  brethren,  that  they  go  into  Galilee,  and 
there  shall  they  see  me,"  Matt.  28,  10;  and  accordingly  in  v. 
16,  it  is  said,  "Then  the  eleven  went  away  into  Galilee,  into  a 
mountain  where  Jesus  had  appointed  them."  This,  therefore, 
was  a  formally  appointed  meeting,  and  doubtless  made  known 
as  extensively  as  possible  to  his  followers,  and  it  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  there  was  a  concourse  of  all  who  could  come, 
not  only  from  Jerusalem,  but  from  the  surrounding  country, 
and  from  Galilee.  Though  intended  specially  for  the  eleven, 
it  is  probable  that  all  attended  who  knew  of  the  meeting,  and 
could  possibly  reach  the  appointed  place.  Who  would  will 
ingly  be  absent  on  such  an  occasion  ?  Others  think  that  this 
appearance  took  place  at  Jerusalem,  where,  in  addition  to  the 
one  hundred  and  twenty  who  constituted  the  nucleus  of  the 
church  in  the  holy  city,  there  were  probably  many  disciples 
gathered  from  all  parts  of  Judea  in  attendance  on  the  pass- 
over.  The  special  value  of  this  testimony  to  the  fact  of 


316  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  6.  T.  8. 

Christ's  resurrection,  arises  not  only  from  the  number  of  the 
witnesses,  but  from  Paul's  appeal  to  their  testimony  while  the 
majority  of  them  were  still  alive.  Some  have  fallen  asleep. 
This  is  the  Christian  expression  for  dying,  v.  18,  and  11,  30. 
Death  to  the  believer  is  a  sleep  for  his  body ;  a  period  of  rest 
to  be  followed  by  a  glorious  day. 

7.  After  that,  lie  was  seen  of  James ;  then  of  all 
the  apostles. 

Which  James  is  here  intended  cannot  be  determined,  as 
the  event  is  not  elsewhere  recorded.  The  chronological  order 
indicated  in  this  citation  of  witnesses,  renders  it  improbable 
that  the  reference  is  to  our  Lord's  interview  with  the  two  disci 
ples  on  their  way  to  Emmau-s,  and  is  inconsistent  with  the  tra 
dition  preserved  by  Jerome,  that  Christ  appeared  to  James 
immediately  after  his  resurrection.  It  has  been  inferred  that 
the  James  intended  was  James  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  who 
presided  over  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  because  he  was  so  con 
spicuous  and  universally  known.  Then  to  all  the  apostles. 
This,  for  the  reason  given  above,  probably  does  not  refer  to 
the  appearance  of  Christ  to  the  eleven  on  the  day  in  which  he 
rose  from  the  dead.  It  may  refer  to  what  is  recorded  in  John 
20,  26  ;  or  to  the  interview  mentioned  in  Acts  1,  4.  Whether 
James  was  one  of  the  apostles  is  not  determined  by  any  thing 
in  the  verse.  The  word  Trao-u/  may  be  used  to  indicate  that 
the  appearance  was  to  the  apostles  collectively ;  and  this,  from 
its  position,  is  the  most  natural  explanation.  Or  the  meaning 
may  be,  he  appeared  to  James  separately,  and  then  to  all  the 
apostles  including  James.  If  the  James  intended  was  James 
of  Jerusalem ;  and  if  that  James  were  a  different  person  from 
James  the  son  of  Alpheus  (a  disputed  point),  then  the  former 
interpretation  should  be  preferred.  For  "the  apostle"  an 
swers  to  "  the  twelve,"  and  if  James  of  Jerusalem  was  not  the 
son  of  Alpheus,  he  was  not  one  of  the  twelve. 

8.  And  last  of  all  he  was  seen  of  me  also,  as  of  one 
born  out  of  due  time. 

Last  of  all  may  mean  last  of  all  the  apostles ;  or,  as  is 
more  probable,  last  of  all  means  the  very  last.  As  to  an  abor 
tion,  he  appeared  to  me.  Such  is  Paul's  language  concern 
ing  himself.  Thus  true  is  it,  that  unmerited  favours  produce 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  8.9.10.  317 

self-abasement.  Paul  could  never  think  of  the  distinction 
conferred  on  him  by  Christ,  without  adverting  to  his  own 
unworthiness. 

9.  For  I  am  the  least  of  tlie  apostles,  that  am  not 
meet  to  be  called  an  apostle,  because  I  persecuted  the 
Church  of  God. 

The  least,  not  because  the  last  in  the  order  of  appoint 
ment,  but  in  rank  and  dignity.  Who  am  not  worthy  to  be 
called  an  apostle.  See  Matt.  3,  11.  Luke  3,  16.  This  deep 
humility  of  the  apostle,  which  led  him  to  regard  himself  as  the 
least  of  the  apostles,  was  perfectly  consistent  with  the  strenu 
ous  assertion  of  his  official  authority,  and  of  his  claim  to  re 
spect  and  obedience.  In  2  Cor.  11,  5  and  12,  11,  he^says,  he 
was  "not  behind  the  very  chiefest  apostles;"  and  in  Gal.  2, 
6-9,  he  claims  full  equality  with  James,  Cephas  and  John 
Those  of  his  children  whom  God  intends  to  exalt^to  posts^oi 
honour  and  power,  he  commonly  prepares  for  their  elevation 
by  leading  them  to  such  a  knowledge  of  their  sinfulness  as  to 
keep  them  constantly  abased.  ^Because  I persecuted  the  church 
of  God.  This  is  the  sin  which  Paul  never  forgave  himself. 
He  often  refers  to  it  with  the  deepest  contrition,  1  Tim.  1, 
13-15.  The  forgiveness  of  sin  does  not  obliterate  the  remem 
brance  of  it ;  neither  does  it  remove  the  sense  of  unworthiness 
and  ill-desert. 

10.  But  by  the  grace  of  God  I  am  what  I  am : 
and  his  grace  which  (was  bestowed)  upon  me  was  not 
in  vain ;  but  I  laboured  more  abundantly  than  they 
all :  yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God  which  was  with 
me. 

Christian  humility  does  not  consist  in  denying  what  there 
is  of  good  in  us  ;  but  in  an  abiding  sense  of  ill-desert,  and  in 
the  consciousness  that  what  we  have  of  good  is  due  to  the 
grace  of  God.  The  grace  of  God,  in  this  connection,  is  not 
the  love  of  God,  but  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  consid 
ered  as  an  unmerited  favour.  This  is  not  only  the  theological 
and  popular,  but  also  the  scriptural  sense  of  the  word  grace 
in  many  passages.  By  the  grace  of  God  I  am  what  I  am. 
That  is,  divine  grace  has  made  me  what  I  am.  c  Had  I  been 


318         I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  10.11.12.13. 

left  to  myself,  I  should  have  continued  a  blasphemer,  a  perse 
cutor,  and  injurious.  It  is  owing  to  his  grace  that  I  am  now 
an  apostle,  preaching  the  faith  which  I  once  destroyed.'  The 
grace  of  which  he  was  made  the  subject,  he  says,  was  not  in 
vain,  i.  e.  without  eifect.  Hut,  on  the  contrary,  I  laboured 
more  abundantly  than  they  all.  This  may  mean  either,  more 
than  any  one  of  the  apostles,  or  more  than  all  of  them  to 
gether.  The  latter  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  tone  of  the 
passage.  It  serves  more  to  exalt  the  grace  of  God,  to  which 
Paul  attributes  every  thing  good ;  and  it  is  historically  true, 
if  the  New  Testament  record  is  to  be  our  guide.  Yet  not  I, 
i.  e.  the  fact  that  I  laboured  so  abundantly  is  not  to  be  refer 
red  to  me ;  I  was  not  the  labourer — but  the  grace  which  was 
with  me.  By  some  editors  the  article  is  omitted  in  the  last 
clause,  f)  o-w  e/W.  The  sense  would  then  be  with  me,  instead 
of,  which  was  with  me.  In  the  one  case  grace  is  represented 
as  co-operating  with  the  apostle ;  in  the  other,  the  apostle 
loses  sight  of  himself  entirely,  and  ascribes  every  thing  to 
grace.  '  It  was  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God.'  Theologically, 
there  is  no  difference  in  these  different  modes  of  statement. 
The  common  text  is  preferred  by  most  editors  on  critical 
grounds  ;  and  the  sense,  according  to  the  common  reading,  is 
more  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  passage,  and  with 
Paul's  manner;  comp.  Rom.  7,  17.  True,  he  did  co-operate 
with  the  grace  of  God,  but  this  co-operation  wras  due  to  grace 
— so  that  with  the  strictest  propriety  he  could  say,  4  Not  I, 
but  the  grace  of  God.' 

11.  Therefore  whether  (it  were)  I  or  they,  so  we 
preach,  and  so  ye  believed. 

This  verse  resumes  the  subject  from  which  vs.  9.  10  are  a 
digression.  '  Christ  appeared  to  the  apostles  and  to  me ; 
whether  therefore  I  or  they  preached,  we  all  proclaimed  that 
fact,  and  ye  all  believed  it.'  The  resurrection  of  Christ  was 
included  in  the  preaching  of  all  ministers,  and  in  the  faith  of 
all  Christians. 

12.  13.  Now  if  Christ  be  preached  that  he  rose 
from  the  dead,  how  say  some  among  you  that  there  is 
no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?     But  if  there  be  no  resur 
rection  of  the  dead,  then  is  Christ  not  risen  : 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  13.14.  319 

The  admission  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  inconsistent 
with  the  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  ^What  has 
happened,  may  happen.  The  actual  is  surely  possible.  This 
mode  of  arguing  shows  that  the  objections  urged  in  Corinth 
bore  equally  against  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  against 
the  general  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  They,  therefore, 
could  not  have  been  founded  on  the  peculiar  difficulties  at 
tending  the  latter  doctrine.  They  must  have  been  derived 
from  the  assumption  that  the  restoration  to  life  of  a  body 
once  dead,  is  either  an  impossibility,  or  an  absurdity.  Most 
probably,  these  objectors  thought,  that  to  reunite  the  soul 
with  the  body  was  to  shut  it  up  again  in  prison ;  and  that  it 
was  as  much  a  degradation  and  retrocession,  as  if  a  man  should 
again  become  an  unborn  infant.  'No,'  these  philosophers 
said,  c  the  hope  of  the  resurrection  "  is  the  hope  of  swine." 
The  soul  having  once  been  emancipated  from  the  defiling  en 
cumbrance  of  the  body,  it  is  never  to  be  re-imprisoned.' 

The  argument  of  the  apostle  does  not  imply  that  the  ob 
jectors  admitted  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  He  is  not  argu 
ing  with  them,  but  against  them.  His  design  is  to  show  that 
their  objections  to  the  resurrection  proved  too  much.  If  they 
proved  any  thing,  they  proved  what  no  Christian  could  admit, 
viz.,  that  Christ  did  not  rise  from  the  dead.  The  denial  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  involves  the  denial  of  the  resur 
rection  of  Christ.  The  question  discussed  throughout  this 
chapter  is  not  the  continued  existence  of  the  soul  after  death, 
but  the  restoration  of  the  body  to  life.  This  is  the  constant 
meaning  of  the  expression  "  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  for 
which  the  more  definite  expression  "  resurrection  of  the  body  " 
is  often  substituted.  Whether  the  false  teachers  in  Corinth, 
who  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  also  denied  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  is  uncertain.  The  probability  is  that 
they  did  not.  For  how  could  any  one  pretend  to  be  a  Chris 
tian,  and  yet  not  believe  in  an  hereafter  ?  All  that  is  certain 
is,  that  they  objected  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  on 
grounds  which  logically  involved  the  denial  of  the  resurrection 
of  Christ. 

14.  And  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  (is)  our  preach 
ing  vain,  and  your  faith  (is)  also  vain. 

This  is  the  first  consequence  of  denying  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.    The  whole  gospel  is  subverted.    The  reason  why 


320  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  14.15. 

this  fact  is  so  essential,  is,  that  Christ  rested  the  validity  of  all 
his  claims  upon  his  resurrection.  If  he  did  rise,  then  he  is 
truly  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  world.  His  sacrifice 
has  been-  accepted,  and  God  is  propitious.  If  he  did  not  rise, 
then  none  of  these  things  is  true.  He  was  not  what  he 
claimed  to  be,  and  his  blood  is  not  a  ransom  for  sinners.  In 
Rom.  1,  3,  the  apostle  expresses  this  truth  in  another  form, 
by  saying  that  Christ  was  by  his  resurrection  demonstrated  to 
be  the  Son  of  God.  It  was  on  account  of  the  fundamental 
importance  of  this  fact  that  the  apostles  were  appointed  to  be 
the  witnesses  of  Christ's  resurrection,  Acts  1,  22.  Then,  i.  e.  in 
case  Christ  be  not  risen,  our  preaching  is  vain,  i.  e.  empty, 
void  of  all  truth,  reality,  and  power.  And  your  faith  is  also 
vain,  i.  e.  empty,  groundless.  These  consequences  are  inevita 
ble.  For,  if  the  apostles  preached  a  risen  and  living  Saviour, 
and  made  his  power  to  save  depend  on  the  fact  of  his  resur 
rection,  of  course,  their  whole  preaching  was  false  and  worth 
less,  if^Christ  were  still  in  the  grave.  The  dead  cannot  save 
the  living.  And  if  the  object  of  the  Christian's  faith  be  the 
Son  of  God  as  risen  from  the  dead  and  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  in  heaven,  they  believed  a  falsehood  if  Christ  be 
not  risen. 

15.  Yea,  and  we  are  found  false  witnesses  of  God; 
because  we  have  testified  of  God  that  he  raised  up 
Christ :  whom  he  raised  not  up,  if  so  be  that  the  dead 
rise  not. 

This  is  the  second  consequence.  The  apostles  were  false 
witnesses.  They  were  guilty  of  deliberate  falsehood.  They 
testified  that  they  had  seen  Christ  after  his  resurrection ;  that 
they  had  handled  him,  felt  that  he  had  flesh  and  bones ;  that 
they  had  put  their  hands  into  his  wounds,  and  knew  assuredly 
that  it  was  their  Lord.  We  are  found,  i.  e.  we  are  de 
tected  or  manifested  as  being  false  witnesses ;  not  such  as 
falsely  claim  to  be  witnesses ;  but  those  who  bear  witness  to 
what  is  false.  Matt.  26,  60.  Because  we  testified  of  God  ; 
literally,  against  God.  We  said  he  did,  what  in  fact  he  did 
not  do,  if  so  be  the  dead  rise  not.  Here  again  it  is  assumed 
that  to  deny  that  the  dead  rise  is  to  deny  that  Christ  has  risen. 
But  why  is  this  ?  Why  may  not  a  man  admit  that  Christ,  the 
incarnate  Son  of  God,  arose  from  the  dead,  and  yet  consistent 
ly  deny  that  there  is  to  be  a  general  resurrection  of  the  dead  ? 


I.  CORINTHIANS   15,  15.  16.  17.  18.          321 

Because  the  thing  denied  was  that  the  dead  could  rise.  The 
denial  was  placed  on  grounds  which  embraced  the  case  of 
Christ.  The  argument  is,  If  the  dead  cannot  risc\  then 
Christ  did  not  rise ;  for  Christ  was  dead. 

16.  For  if  the  dead  rise  not,  then  is  not  Christ 
raised : 

This  is  a  reassertion  of  the  inseparable  connection  between  f 
these  two  events.  If  there  be  no  resurrection,  Christ  is  not 
risen.  If  the  thing  be  impossible,  it  has  never  happened. 
The  sense  in  which  Christ  rose,  determines  the  sense  in  which 
the  dead  are  said  to  rise.  As  it  is  the  resurrection  of  Christ's 
body  that  is  affirmed,  so  it  is  the  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of 
the  dead,  and  not  merely  the  continued  existence  of  their 
souls  which  is  affirmed.  The  repetition  in  this  verse  of  what 
had  been  said  in  v.  13,  seems  to  be  with  the  design  of  prepar 
ing  the  way  for  v.  17. 

17.  And  if  Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  (is) 
vain ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins. 

This  is  the  third  consequence  of  the  denial  of  Christ's  resur 
rection.  In  v.  14  it  was  said,  your  faith  is  Ken),  empty  ;  here 
it  is  said  to  be  /xarcua,  fruitless.  In  what  sense  the  following 
clause  explains ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins,  i.  e.  under  the  con 
demnation  of  sin.  Comp.  John  8,  21,  "Ye  shall  die  in  your 
sins."  As  Christ's  resurrection  is  necessary  to  our  justifica 
tion,  Rom.  4,  25,  if  he  did  not  rise,  we  are  not  justified.  To 
teach,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  resurrection,  is  to  teach  that 
there  is  no  atonement  and  no  pardon.  Errorists  seldom  see 
the  consequences  of  the  false  doctrines  which  they  embrace. 
Many  allow  themselves  to  entertain  doubts  as  to  this  very 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  who  would  be 
shocked  at  the  thought  of  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  atone 
ment.  Yet  Paul  teaches  that  the  denial  of  the  one  involves 
the  denial  of  the  other. 

18.  Then  they  also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ 
are  perished. 

This  is  the  fourth  disastrous  consequence  of  the  denial  of 
the  doctrine  in  question.     All  the  dead  in  Christ  are  lost.     To 

14* 


322  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  18.19. 

fall  asleep  in  Christ  is  to  die  in  faith,  or  in  communion  with 
Christ  for  salvation.  See  1  Thess.  4,  14.  Rev.  14, 13.  Are 
perished;  rather,  they  perished.  4  They  perished  when  they 
died.'  Perdition,  according  to  Scripture,  is  not  annihilation, 
but  everlasting  misery  and  sin.  It  is  the  loss  of  holiness  and 
happiness  for  ever.  If  Christ  did  not  rise  for  the  justification 
of  those  who  died  in  him,  they  found  no  advocate  at  the  bar 
of  God ;  and  have  incurred  the  fate  of  those  who  perish  in 
their  sins.  Rather  than  admit  such  conclusions  as  these,  the 
Corinthians  might  well  allow  philosophers  to  say  what  they 
pleased  about  the  impossibility  of  a  resurrection.  It  was 
enough  for  them  that  Christ  had  risen,  whether  they  could 
understand  how  it  can  be  that  the  dead  should  rise,  or  not. 

19.  If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ,  we 
are  of  all  men  most  miserable. 

Not  only  the  future,  but  even  the  present  is  lost,  if  Christ 
be  not  risen.  Not  only  did  the  departed  sink  into  perdition 
when  they  died,  but  we,  who  are  alive,  are  more  miserable 
than  other  men.  This  is  the  last  conclusion  which  the  apostle 
draws  from  the  denial  of  the  resurrection.  If  in  this  life  only, 
the  word  povov,  only,  admits  of  a  threefold  connection.  Al 
though  it  stands  at  the  end  of  the  clause  it  may  be  connected, 
as  in  our  translation,  with  the  words  "  in  this  life."  '  If  in  this 
life  only.'  That  is,  if  all  the  good  we  expect  from  Christ  is  to 
be  enjoyed  in  this  life,  we  are  more  miserable  than  other  men. 
"We  are  constantly  exposed  to  all  manner  of  persecutions  and 
sufferings,  while  they  are  at  their  ease.  2.  It  may  be  connect 
ed  with  the  word  Christ.  This  is  a  very  natural  construction, 
according  to  the  position  of  the  words  in  the  common  text, 
for  (ei/  X/HO-TU)  juoi/oi/),  in  Christ  only,  stand  together.  The 
sense  would  then  be,  '  If  we  have  set  all  our  hopes  on  Christ, 
and  lie  fails  us,  we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable.'  This, 
however,  supposes  the  important  clause,  on  which  everything 
depends  (if  he  fails  us),  to  be  omitted.  It  also  leaves  the 
words  in  this  life  without  importance.  3.  Recent  editors, 
following  the  older  manuscripts,  place  ev  X/HO-TW  before  the 
verb,  and  make  JJLOVOV  qualify  the  whole  clause.  '  If  we  have 
only  hoped  in  Christ,  and  there  is  to  be  no  fulfilling  of  our 
hopes,  we  are  more  miserable  than  others.'  Or,  '  If  we  are 
only  such  (nothing  more  than  such)  who  in  life,  and  not  in 
death,  have  hope  in  Christ,'  &c.  The  apposition  between  the 


I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  19.20.  323 

dead  in  v.  18,  and  the  living  in  this  verse,  is  in  favour  of  the 
lirst-mentioned  explanation.  4  Those  who  died  in  Christ,  per 
ished  when  they  died.  And  we,  if  all  our  hopes  in  Christ  are 
confined  to  this  life,  are  the  most  miserable  of  men.'  We  have 
hoped.  The  Greek  is  ^ATI-I/COTCS  coyxtV,  which,  as  the  commen 
tators  remark,  expresses  not  what  we  do,  but  what  we  are. 
We  are  hopers.  This  passage  does  not  teach  that  Christians 
are  in  this  life  more  miserable  than  other  men.  This  is  con 
trary  to  experience.  Christians  are  unspeakably  happier  than 
other  men.  All  that  Paul  means  to  say  is,  that  if  you  take 
Christ  from  Christians,  you  take  their  all.  He  is  the  source 
not  only  of  their  future,  but  of  their  present  happiness. 
Without  him  they  are  yet  in  their  sins,  under  the  curse  of  the 
law,  unreconciled  to  God,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God 
in  the  world ;  and  yet  subject  to  all  the  peculiar  trials  incident 
to  a  Christian  profession,  which  in  the  apostolic  age  often  in 
cluded  the  loss  of  all  things. 

20.  But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  (and) 
become  the  first-fruits  of  them  that  slept. 

J3ut  now,  vwl  Se,  i.  e.  as  the  matter  actually  stands.  All 
the  gloomy  consequences  presented  in  the  preceding  verses 
follow  from  the  assumption  that  Christ  did  not  rise  from  the 
dead.  But  as  in  point  of  fact  he  did  rise,  these  things  have  no 
place.  Our  preaching  is  not  vain,  your  faith  is  not  vain,  ye 
are  not  in  your  sins,  the  dead  in  Christ  have  not  perished,  we 
are  not  more  miserable  than  other  men.  The  reverse  of  all 
this  is  true.  Christ  has  not  only  risen,  but  he  has  risen  in  a 
representative  character.  His  resurrection  is  the  pledge  of 
the  resurrection  of  his  people.  He  rose  as  the  first-fruits  of 
them  that  slept,  and  not  of  them  only,  but  as  the  first-fruits  of 
all  who  are  ever  to  sleep  in  Jesus.  The  apostle  does  not  mean 
merely  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  1  o  precede  that  of 
his  people;  but  as  the  first  sheaf  of  the  harvest  presented  to 
God  as  a  thank-offering,  was  the  pledge  and  assurance  of  the 
ingathering  of  the  whole  harvest,  so  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
is  a  pledge  and  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  his  people.  In 
Rom.  8,  23  and  11,  16,  the  word  owm/^,  first-fruits,  has  the 
same  force.  Comp.  also  Col.  1,  18,  where  Christ  is  called 
"the  first  begotten  from  the  dead,"  and  Rev.  1,  5.  Of  the 
great  harvest  of  glorified  bodies  which  our  earth  is  to  yield 
Christ  is  the  first-fruits.  As  he  rose,  so  all  his  people  must ;  as 


324  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  20.21.22. 

certainly  and  as  gloriously,  Phil.  3,  21.  The  nature  of  this 
causal  connection  between  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  that 
of  his  people,  is  explained  in  the  following  verses. 

21.  For  since  by  man  (came)  death,  by  man  (came) 
also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

The  connection  between  this  verse  and  the  preceding  is 
obvious.  The  resurrection  of  Christ  secures  the  resurrection 
of  his  people,  for  as  there  was  a  causal  relation  between  the 
death  of  Adam  and  the  death  of  his  descendants,  so  there  is  a 
causal  relation  between  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  that  of 
his  people.  What  that  causal  relation  is,  is  not  here  expressed. 
It  is  simply  asserted  that  as  death  is  81  dv$/xo7rou,  by  means  of 
a  man  /  so  the  resurrection  is  St'  dU^pwTrov,  by  means  of  a  man. 
Why  Adam  was  the  cause  of  death,  and  why  Christ  is  the 
cause  of  life,  is  explained  in  the  following  verse,  and  abundant 
ly  elsewhere  in  Scripture,  but  not  here.  By  death,  in  this 
verse,  is  meant  the  death  of  the  body ;  and  by  the  resurrection 
is  meant  the  restoration  of  the  body  to  life.  This,  however, 
only  proves  that  the  death  of  which  Adam  was  the  cause  in 
cludes  physical  death,  and  that  the  life  of  which  Christ  is  the 
cause  includes  the  future  life  of  the  body.  But  as  the  life 
which  we  derive  from  Christ  includes  far  more  than  the  life  of 
the  body,  so  the  death  which  flows  from  Adam  includes  for 
more  than  physical  death. 

22.  Tor  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall 
all  be  made  alive. 

This  is  the  reason  why  Adam  was  the  cause  of  death,  and 
why  Christ  is  the  cause  of  life.  We  die  by  means  of  Adam, 
because  we  were  in  Adam ;  and  we  live  by  means  of  Christ, 
because  we  are  in  Christ.  Union  with  Adam  is  the  cause  of 
death  ;  union  with  Christ  is  the  cause  of  life.  The  nature  of 
this  union  and  its  consequences  are  more  fully  explained  in 
Rom.  5,  12-21.  In  both  cases  it  is  a  representative  and  vital 
union.  We  are  in  Adam  because  he  was  our  head  and  repre 
sentative,  and  because  we  partake  of  his  nature.  And  we  are 
in  Christ  because  he  is  our  head  and  representative,  and  be. 
cause  we  partake  of  his  nature  through  the  indwelling  of  his 
Spirit.  Adam,  therefore,  is  the  cause  of  death,  because  his 
ein  is  the  judicial  ground  of  our  condemnation ;  and  because 


I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  22.  325 

we  derive  from  him  a  corrupt  and  enfeebled  nature.  ^  Christ 
is  the  cause  of  life,  because  his  righteousness  is  the  judicial 
ground  of  our  justification  ;  and  because  we  derive  from  him 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  the  source  of  life  both  to  the  soul 
and  body.  Comp.  Rom.  8,  9-11. 

That  the  word  all  in  the  latter  part  of  this  verse  is  to  be 
restricted  to  all  believers  (or  rather,  to  all  the  people  of  Christ, 
as  infants  are  included)  is  plain,  1.  Because  the  word  in  both 
clauses  is  limited.  It  is  the  all  who  are  in  Adam  that  die ; 
and  the  all  who  are  in  Christ  who  are  made  alive.  As  union 
with  Christ  is  made  the  ground  of  the  communication  of  life 
here  spoken  of,  it  can  be  extended  only  to  those  who  are  in 
him.  But  according  to  the  constant  representation  of  the 
Scriptures,  none  are  in  him  but  his  own  people.  "  If  any  man 
be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature,"  2  Cor.  5,  17.  2.  Because 
the  verb  (£u>o7roie'a>)  here  found  is  never  used  of  the  wicked. 
Whenever  employed  in  reference  to  the  work  of  Christ  it 
always  means  to  communicate  to  them  that  life  of  which  he  is 
the  source,  John  5,  21.  6,  63.  Rom.  8.  11.  1  Cor.  15,  45. 
Gal.  3,  21.  The  real  meaning  of  the  verse  therefore,  is,  'As 
in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  partakers  of  a 
glorious  and  everlasting  life.'  Unless,  therefore,  the  Bible 
teaches  that  all  men  are  in  Christ,  and  that  all  through  him 
partake  of  eternal  life,  the  passage  must  be  restricted  to  his 
own  people.  3.  Because,  although  Paul  elsewhere  speaks  of 
a  general  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust,  Acts 
24,  15,  yet,  throughout  this  chapter  he  speaks  only  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  righteous.  4.  Because,  in  the  parallel 
passage  in  Rom.  5,  12-21,  the  same  limitation  must  be  made. 
In  v.  18  of  that  chapter  it  is  said,  "As  by  the  offence  of  one 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so  by 
the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to 
justification  of  life."  That  is,  as  for  the  offence  of  Adam  al] 
men  were  condemned,  so  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  all 
men  are  justified.  The  context  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture 
require  us  to  understand  this  to  mean,  as  all  who  are  in  Adam 
are  condemned,  so  all  who  are  in  Christ  are  justified.  No 
historical  Christian  church  has  ever  held  that  all  men  indis 
criminately  are  justified.  For  whom  God  justifies  them  he 
also  glorifies,  Rom.  8,  30. 

There  are  two  other  interpretations  of  this  verse.  Accord 
ing  to  one,  the  verb,  shall  be  made  alive,  is  taken  to  mean  no 
more  than  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead.  But  this,  as  already 


326  I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  22.23.24. 

remarked,  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  prevailing  use  of 
the  word,  but  with  the  whole  context.  Others,  admitting  that 
the  passage  necessarily  treats  of  a  resurrection  to  glory  and 
blessedness,  insist  that  the  word  all  must  be  taken  to  include 
all  men.  But  this  contradicts  the  constant  doctrine  of  the 
Bible,  and  has  no  support  in  the  context.  It  is  not  absolutely 
all  who  die  through  Adam,  but  those  only  who  were  in  him  ; 
so  it  is  not  absolutely  all  who  live  through  Christ,  but  those 
only  who  are  in  him. 

23.  But  every  man  in  his  own  order :  Christ  the 
first-fruits;    afterward  they  that  are  Christ's   at  his 


coming. 


In  his  own  order.  The  word  rcfyua  is  properly  a  concrete 
term,  meaning  a  band,  as  of  soldiers.  If  this  be  insisted  upon 
here,  then  Paul  considers  the  hosts  of  those  that  rise  as  divided 
into  different  cohorts  or  companies ;  first  Christ,  then  his  peo 
ple,  then  the  rest  of  mankind.  But  the  word  is  used  by  later 
writers,  as  Clemens  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  I.  37,  and 
41,  in  the  sense  of  rdfa,  order  of  succession.  And  this  best 
suits  the  context,  for  Christ  is  not  a  band.  All  that  Paul 
teaches  is,  that,  although  the  resurrection  of  Christ  secures 
that  of  his  people,  the  two  events  are  not  contemporaneous. 
First  Christ,  then  those  who  are  Christ's.  There  is  no  intima 
tion  of  any  further  division  or  separation  in  time  in  the  process 
of  the  resurrection.  The  resurrection  of  the  people  of  Christ 
is  to  take  place  at  his  coming,  1  Thess.  3,  13.  4,  14-19. 

24.  Then  (cometh)  the  end,  when  he  shall  have  de 
livered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father ;  when 
he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule,  and  all  authority  and 
power. 

This  is  a  very  difficult  passage,  and  the  interpretations 
given  of  it  are  too  numerous  to  be  recited.  The  first  question 
is,  What  is  the  end  here  spoken  of?  The  common  answer  is, 
That  it  is  the  end  of  the  world.  That  is,  the  close  of  the  pres 
ent  order  of  things ;  the  consummation  of  the  work  of  redemp 
tion.  In  favour  of  this  view,  it  may  be  urged,  1.  That  where 
there  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  determine  otherwise,  The 
end  naturally  means  the  end  of  all  things.  There  is  nothing 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  24.  321 

here  to  limit  the  application,  but  the  nature  of  the  subject 
spoken  of.  2.  The  analogy  of  Scripture  is  in  favour  of  this  ex 
planation.  In  1  Pet.  4,  7  we  find  the  expression  "  the  end  of 
all  things  is  at  hand."  Matt.  24,  6,  "  The  end  is  not  yet ; " 
v.  14,  ""Then  shall  the  end  come."  So  in  Mark  13,  1.  Luke 
21,9.  In  all  these  passages  the  end  means  the  end  of  the 
world.  3.  The  equivalent  expressions  serve  to  explain  the 
meaning  of  this  phrase.  The  disciples  asked  our  Lord,  "  What 
shall  be  the  sign  of  thy  coming,  and  of  the  end  of  the  world  ?  " 
(i.  e.  the  consummation  of  the  present  dispensation.)  In  an 
swer  to  this  question,  our  Lord  said  certain  things  were  to 
happen,  but  "  the  end  is  not  yet ; "  and  afterwards,  "  then 
shall  the  end  come."  See  Matt.  24,  3.  6.  14.  The  same  ex 
pression  occurs  in  the  same  sense,  Matt.  13,  39.  28,  20,  and 
elsewhere.  "The  end,"  therefore,  means  the  end  of  the 
world.  In  the  same  sense  the  phrase  "  until  the  restoration  of 
all  things"  is  probably  used  in  Acts  3,  21.  4.  What  immedi 
ately  follows  seems  decisive  in  favour  of  this  interpretation. 
The  end  is,  when  Christ  shall  deliver  up  his  kingdom,  after 
having  subdued  all  his  enemies ;  i.  e.  after  having  accomplished 
the  work  of  redemption. 

Many  commentators  understand  by  the  end,  the  end  of  the 
resurrection.  That  work,  they  say,  is  to  be  accomplished  by 
distinct  stages.  First  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  then  that  of 
his  people,  then  that  of  the  wicked.  This  last,  they  say,  is 
expressed  by  then  cometh  the  end,  viz.,  the  end  of  the  resur 
rection.  Against  this  view,  however,  are  all  the  arguments 
above  stated  in  favour  of  the  opinion  that  the  end  means  the 
end  of  the  world.  Besides,  the  doctrine  that  there  are  to  be 
two  resurrections,  one  of  the  righteous  and  another  of  the 
wicked,  the  latter  separated  from  the  former  by  an  unknown 
period  of  time,  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  New  Testament,  un 
less  what  is  said  in  the  20th  chapter  of  Revelation  teaches 
that  doctrine.  Admitting  that  a  twofold  resurrection  is  there 
spoken  of,  it  would  not  be  proper  to  transfer  from  that  pas 
sage  an  idea  foreign  to  all  Paul's  representations  of  the  subject. 
If  that  fact  was  revealed  to  John,  it  does  not  prove  that  it  was 
revealed  to  Paul.  All  that  the  most  stringent  doctrine  of  in 
spiration  requires  is,  that  the  passages  should  not  contradict 
each  other.  The  passage  in  Revelation,  however,  is  altogether 
too  uncertain  to  be  made  the  rule  of  interpretation  for  the 
plainer  declarations  of  the  epistolary  portions  of  the  New  Tes 
tament.  On  the  contrary,  what  is  doubtful  in  the  former 


328  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  24. 

should  be  explained  by  what  is  clearly  taught  in  the  latter, 
Secondly,  it  is  clearly  taught  in  the  gospels  and  epistles  that 
the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  and  of  the  wicked  is  to  be 
contemporaneous.  At  least,  that  is  the  mode  in  which  the 
subject  is  always  presented.  The  element  of  time  (i.  e.  the 
chronological  succession  of  the  events)  may  indeed  in  these 
representations  be  omitted,  as  is  so  often  the  case  in  the  pro 
phecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  unless  it  can  be  proved 
from  other  sources,  that  events  which  are  foretold  as  contem 
poraneous,  or  as  following  the  one  the  other  in  immediate  suc 
cession,  are  in  fact  separated  by  indefinite  periods  of  time,  no 
such  separation  can  properly  be  assumed.  In  the  evangelists 
and  epistles  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  and  that  of  the 
wicked  are  spoken  of  as  contemporaneous,  and  since  their  sep 
aration  in  time  is  nowhere  else  revealed,  the  only  proper  in 
ference  is  that  they  are  to  occur  together.  In  Matt.  24,  3,  the 
coming  of  Christ  and  the  end  of  the  world  are  coupled  to 
gether  as  contemporaneous.  And  throughout  that  chapter 
our  Lord  foretells  what  is  to  happen  before  that  event,  and 
adds,  "Then  shall  appear  the  sign  of  the  Son  of  Man  in  heaven 
.  .  .  and  he  shall  send  his  angels  with  the  sound  of  a  great 
trumpet,  and  they  shall  gather  together  the  elect  from  the 
four  winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other,"  vs.  30. 
31.  In  John  5,  28.  29  it  is  said,  "The  hour  is  coming  when 
all  (good  and  bad)  who  are  in  their  graves  shall  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  shall  come  forth,  they  that  have  done 
good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life,  and  they  that  have  done 
evil  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation."  In  2  Thess.  1,  7-10, 
Christ  is  said  to  come  to  take  vengeance  on  those  who  obey 
not  the  gospel,  and  to  be  glorified  in  the  saints.  These  events 
go  together.  Besides,  our  Lord  repeatedly  says  that  he  will 
raise  up  his  people  "  at  the  last  day,"  John  6,  39.  40.  11,  24, 
and  therefore  not  an  indefinitely  long  period  before  the  last 
day.  According  to  the  uniform  representations  of  the  Scrip 
tures,  when  Christ  comes  he  is  to  raise  all  the  dead  and  sepa 
rate  the  wicked  from  among  the  just  as  a  shepherd  divides  his 
sheep  from  the  goats.  Or,  according  to  another  figure,  he  is 
to  send  forth  his  angels  and  separate  the  tares  from  the  wheat. 
It  has  therefore  been  the  constant  faith  of  the  church  that  the 
second  advent  of  Christ,  the  resurrection  of  the  just  and  of  the 
unjust,  the  final  judgment  and  end  of  the  world — are  parts  of 
one  great  transaction,  and  not  events  which  are  to  succeed 
each  other  at  long  intervals  of  time.  All  this,  however,  is  said 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  24.  320 

with  diffidence  and  submission.  It  may  prove  to  be  otherwise. 
The  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  produced  the  universal 
impression  that  the  first  coming  of  Christ  was  to  be  attended 
at  once  by  events  which  we  learn  from  the  New  Testament 
require  ages  to  bring  about.  Still,  we  are  bound  to  take  the 
Scriptures  as  they  stand,  and  events  which  are  described  as 
contemporaneous  are  to  be  assumed  to  be  so,  until  the  event 
proves  the  contrary.  We  may  be  perfectly  sure  that  the 
Scriptures  will  prove  infallibly  true.  The  predictions  of  the 
Old  Testament,  although  in  some  points  misinterpreted,  or 
rather  interpreted  too  far,  by  the  ancient  church,  were  fully 
vindicated  and  explained  by  the  event. 

The  second  question  to  be  considered  is,  When  is  the  end 
of  the  world  to  take  place  ?  According  to  some,  at  Chrises 
coming  ;  according  to  others,  at  an  indefinite  period  after  his 
second  coming.  It  may  be  admitted  that  this  verse  is  not  de 
cisive  on  this  point.  It  marks  the  succession  of  certain  events, 
but  determines  nothing  as  to  the  interval  ^  between  them. 
First,  Christ's  resurrection  ;  then  the  resurrection  of  his  people ; 
then  the  end  of  the  world.  But  as  it  is  said  that  those  who  are 
Christ's  shall  rise  at  his  coming,  and  then  cometh  the  end ; 
the  natural  impression  is  that  nothing  remains  to  be  done  after 
the  resurrection  before  the  end  comes.  This  view  is  confirmed 
by  the  numerous  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  several  of 
which  have  already  been  quoted,  which  connect  the  general 
judgment  and  end  of  the  world  as  intimately  with  the  coming 
of  Christ  as  the  resurrection  of  his  people.  Some  of  those  who 
assume  that  an  Indefinite  period  is  to  elapse  between  the  com 
ing  of  Christ  and  the  end  of  the  world,  suppose  that  the  inter 
vening  period  is  to  be  occupied  not  in  the  work  of  conversion, 
but  in  the  subjugation  of  the  enemies  of  Christ  spoken  of  in 
the  following  verses.  The  common  opinion  among  those  who 
adopt  this  interpretation  is,  that  the  interval  in  question  is  to 
be  occupied  by  the  personal  reign  of  Christ  on  earth.  This  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Chiliasts,  and  of  modern  Millena- 
rians.  The  form  which  this  doctrine  has  commonly  assumed 
in  ancient  and  modern  times  is  only  a  modified  Judaism,  en 
tirely  at  variance  with  the  spirituality  of  the  gospel  and  with 
the  teachings  of  the  apostle  in  this  chapter.  He  tells  iis  that 
flesh  and  blood,  i.  e.  bodies  organized  as  our  present  bodies 
are,  i.  e.  natural  bodies,  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  whole  design  of  the  latter  portion  of  this  chapter  is  to 
show  that  after  the  resurrection,  the  bodies  of  believers  will 


330  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  24. 

be  like  the  glorious  body  of  the  Son  of  God,  adapted  to  a 
heavenly,  and  not  to  an  earthly  condition. 

A  third  question  which  this  verse  presents  is,  In  what  sense 
is  Christ  to  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Father  ?  In  the 
common  text  the  words  are  OTO.V  TrapaSw,  when  he  shall  have 
delivered  up  ;  most  of  the  modern  editors  read  TrapaSiSw,  when 
he  delivers  up.  That  is,  when  the  end  comes,  Christ  is  to  de 
liver  up  the  kingdom  to  his  Father.  What  does  this  mean  ? 
The  Scriptures  constantly  teach  that  Christ's  kingdom  is  an 
everlasting  kingdom,  and  of  his  dominion  there  is  no  end.  In 
what  sense,  then,  can  he  be  said  to  deliver  up  his  kingdom  ? 
It  must  be  remembered,  that  the  Scriptures  speak  of  a  three 
fold  kingdom  as  belonging  to  Christ.  1.  That  which  necessa 
rily  belongs  to  him  as  a  divine  person,  extending  over  all 
creatures,  and  of  which  he  can  never  divest  himself.  2.  That 
which  belongs  to  him  as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  extending 
over  his  own  people.  This  also  is  everlasting.  He  will  for 
ever  remain  the  head  and  sovereign  of  the  redeemed.  3.  That 
dominion  to  which  he  was  exalted  after  his  resurrection,  when 
all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  was  committed  to  his  hands. 
This  kingdom,  which  he  exercises  as  the  Theanthropos,  and 
which  extends  over  all  principalities  and  powers,  he  is  to  de 
liver  up  when  the  work  of  redemption  is  accomplished.  He 
was  invested  with  this  dominion  in  his  mediatorial  character 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  his  work  to  its  consummation. 
When  that  is  done,  i.  e.  when  he  has  subdued  all  his  enemies, 
then  he  will  no  longer  reign  over  the  universe  as  Mediator, 
but  only  as  God ;  while  his  headship  over  his  people  is  to  con 
tinue  for  ever.  To  God  even  the  Father,  i.  e.  to  him  who  is  at 
once  his  God  and  Father.  This  is  the  Scriptural  designation 
of  the  first  person  of  the  Trinity.  He  is  the  God  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  inasmuch  as  he  is  the  God  whom  Christ  came  to 
reveal,  and  whose  work  he  performs.  He  is  his  Father  in  vir 
tue  of  the  eternal  relation  subsisting  between  the  first  and 
second  persons  in  the  Godhead. 

The  fourth  question  which  this  pregnant  verse  suggests  is 
presented  in  the  last  clause.  When  he  shall  have  put  down 
all  rule,  and  authority  and  power.  Calvin  and  others  under 
stand  this  to  mean, '  When  he  shall  have  abrogated  all  other  do 
minion  than  his  own.'  Whatever  authority  is  now  exercised 
by  one  man  over  others  is  at  last  to  be  abolished,  and  merged 
in  the  all-pervading  authority  of  God.  Most  commentators,  in 
obedience  to  the  context,  understand  the  passage  to  refer  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  24.25.26.  331 

all  hostile  powers,  whether  demoniacal  or  human.  These  are 
to  be  put  down,  i.  e.  effectually  subdued ;  not  annihilated,  and 
not  converted ;  but  simply  deprived  of  all  power  to  disturb 
the  harmony  of  his  kingdom. 

25.  For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies 
under  his  feet. 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  Christ  cannot  relinquish 
his  dominion  over  the  universe  as  mediator  until  the  end 
comes,  and  why  he  will  then  deliver  it  up.  He  must  reign 
until  the  purpose  for  which  he  was  invested  with  this  univer 
sal  dominion  is  accomplished.  As  in  Ps.  110  it  is  said  to  the 
Messiah,  "  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  until  I  make  thy  ene 
mies  thy  footstool,"  many  assume  that  God  is  the  subject  of 
the  verb  has  put.  The  meaning  would  then  be,  '  He  must 
reign  until  God  has  put  all  his  enemies  under  his  feet.'  But 
this  is  inconsistent  with  the  context.  Christ  is  to  put  down 
all  rule,  authority  and  power,  v.  24,  and  he  reigns  until  he  has 
accomplished  that  work.  The  two  modes  of  representation 
are  perfectly  consistent.  The  Father  created  the  world, 
though  he  did  it  through  the  Son,  Heb.  1,  3.  The  work, 
therefore,  is  sometimes  ascribed  to  the  one  and  sometimes  to 
the  other.  In  like  manner  the  Father  subdues  the  powers  of 
darkness,  but  it  is  through  Christ  to  whom  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth  has  been  committed.  It  is  therefore  equally 
proper  to  say  that  God  makes  the  enemies  of  Christ  his  foot 
stool,  and  that  Christ  himself  puts  his  enemies  under  his  feet. 
The  enemies  who  are  to  be  thus  subdued  are  not  only  intelli 
gent  beings  hostile  to  Christ,  but  all  the  forms  of  evil,  physical 
and  moral,  because  death  is  specially  included.  By  subduing, 
however,  is  not  meant  destroying  or  banishing  out  of  existence. 
The  passage  does  not  teach  that  Christ  is  to  reign  until  all  evil 
is  banished  from  the  universe.  Satan  is  said  to  be  subdued, 
when  deprived  of  his  power  to  injure  the  people  of  God. 
And  evil  in  like  manner  is  subdued  when  it  is  restrained  with 
in  the  limits  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness. 

26.  The  last  enemy  (that)  shall  be  destroyed  (is)  death. 

Death  shall  reign  until  the  resurrection.  Then  men  shall 
never  more  be  subject  to  his  power.  Then  death  shall  be 
swallowed  up  in  victory,  Luke  20,  26.  "  Neither  shall  they 
die  any  more,"  2  Tim.  1,  10.  Rev.  20,  14. 


332  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  27. 

27.  For  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet.  But 
when  he  saith,  All  things  are  put  under  (him,  it  is) 
manifest  that  he  is  excepted,  which  did  put  all  things 
under  him. 

The  proof  that  death  is  finally  to  be  destroyed  is  derived 
from  the  8th  Psalm,  where  the  subjection  of  all  things  to  the 
Messiah  is  predicted.  There  are  two  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  frequently  quoted  in  the  New  Testament  as  fore 
telling  the  absolutely  universal  dominion  of  the  Messiah,  Ps. 
110  and  Ps.  8.  The  former  is  quoted,  or  its  language  appro 
priated,  in  v.  25.  Matt.  22,  44.  Acts  2,  34.  Eph.  1,  22.  Heb.  1, 
13.  10, 12. 13.  1  Pet.  3,  22.  In  this  there  is  no  difficulty,  as 
that  Psalm  clearly  refers  to  the  Messiah  and  to  none  else. 
The  8th  Psalm  is  quoted  and  applied  to  Christ  in  this  passage, 
and  in  Eph.  1,  22.  Heb.  2,  8,  and  1  Pet.  3,  22.  As  this  Psalm 
has  no  apparent  reference  to  the  Messiah,  but  is  a  thanksgiv 
ing  to  God  for  his  goodness  to  man,  the  use  made  of  it  in  the 
New  Testament  is  to  be  understood  as  an  inspired  exposition 
of  its  hidden  meaning.  That  is,  when  the  Psalmist  said, 
"  Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works  of  thy 
hands,  thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his  feet,"  we  learn  from 
the  New  Testament  that  the  Spirit  of  God  intended  by  these 
words  far  more  than  that  man  was  invested  with  dominion 
over  the  beasts  of  the  field.  There  is  no  limit  to  the  all  things 
here  intended.  Heb.  2,  8.  Man  is  clothed  with  dominion 
over  the  whole  universe,  over  all  principalities  and  powers, 
and  every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world  but  also 
in  that  which  is  to  come.  This  is  fulfilled  in  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  into  whose  hands  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  has 
been  committed.  This  may  be  called  the  hidden  meaning  of 
the  Psalm,  because  it  never  would  have  been  discovered  with 
out  a  further  revelation  such  as  we  find  in  the  exposition  given 
by  the  inspired  apostles.  When  he  saith,  orav  €17777.  This  may 
mean  either,  when  the  Scripture  saith,  or  token  God  saith. 
The  latter  is  better  on  account  of  what  follows.  The  verb  is 
not  to  be  translated  as  in  the  present  tense,  but,  as  the  better 
commentators  agree,  in  the  past  future,  see  v.  24.  Heb.  1,  6. 
4  When  God  shall  have  said/  That  is,  when  God  shall  have 
declared  his  purpose  to  subject  all  things  to  Christ  accom 
plished,  it  will  then  be  manifest  that  ah1  things  are  subject  to 
him,  God  only  excepted. 


I.   CORINTHIANS  15,  28.  333 

28.  And  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto 
him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto 
him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be 
all  in  all. 

When  the  work  of  redemption  has  been  accomplished,  the 
dead  raised,  the  judgment  held,  the  enemies  of  Christ  all  sub 
dued,  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  the  Son  also  himself  be  sub- 
ject  to  him  who  put  all  things  under  him.     This  passage  is 
evidently  parallel  with  that  in  v.  24.     The  subjection  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father  here  means  precisely  what  is  there  meant 
by  his   delivering  up  the    kingdom  to  God    even    the  Fa 
ther.     The  thing  done,  and  the  person  who  does  it,  are  the 
same.     The  subjection  here  spoken  of  is  not  predicated  of  the 
eternal  Logos,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  any  more 
than  the  kingdom  spoken  of  in  v.  24  is  the  dominion  which  be 
longs  essentially  to  Christ  as  God.    As  there  the  word  Christ 
designates  the  Theanthropos,  so  does  the  word  Son  here  desig 
nate,  not  the  Logos  as  such,  but  the  Logos  as  incarnate.     And 
as  the  delivery  of  the  kingdom  or  royal  authority  over  the 
universe  committed  to  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  is  consist 
ent  at  once  with  his  continued  dominion  as  God  over  all  crea 
tures,  and  with  his  continued  headship  over  his  people ;  so  is 
the   subjection  here   spoken  of  consistent  with  his   eternal 
equality  with  the  Father.     It  is  not  the  subjection  of  the  Son 
as  Son,  but  of  the  Son  as  Theanthropos  of  which  the  apostle 
here  speaks.     The  doctrine  of  the  true  and  proper  divinity  of 
our  Lord  is  so   clearly  revealed  in  Scripture,  and  is  so  in 
wrought  into  the  faith  of  his  people,  that  such  passages ^  as 
these,  though  adduced  with  so  much  confidence  by  the  im- 
pugners  of  that  doctrine,  give  believers  no  more  trouble  than 
tli" ascription  of  the  limitations  of  our  nature  to  God.     When 
the  Bible  says  that  God  repents,  we  know  that  it  is  consistent 
with  his  immutability;  and  when  it  says  the  Son  is  subject  or 
inferior  to  the  Father,  we  know  that  it  is  consistent  with  their 
equality,  as  certainly  as  we  know  that  saying  that  man  is  immor 
tal  is  consistent  with  saying  he  is  mortal.     We  know  that  both 
of  the  last-mentioned  propositions  are  true ;  because  mortality 
is  predicated  of  man  in  one  aspect,  and  immortality  in  another 
aspect.     In  one  sense  he  is  mortal,  in  another  sense  he  is  im 
mortal.     In  like  manner  we  know  that  the  verbally  inconsist 
ent  propositions,  the  Son  is  subject  to  the  Father,  and,  the  Son 
is  equal  with  the  Father,  are  both  true.     In  one  sense  he  is 


334  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  28. 

subject,  in  another  sense  he  is  equal.  The  son  of  a  king  may 
be  the  equal  of  his  father  in  every  attribute  of  his  nature, 
though  officially  inferior.  So  the  eternal  Son  of  God  may  be 
coequal  with  the  Father,  though  officially  subordinate.  What 
difficulty  is  there  in  this  ?  What  shade  does  it  cast  over  the 
full  Godhead  of  our  adorable  Redeemer  ?  The  subordination, 
however,  here  spoken  of,  is  not  that  of  the  human  nature  of 
Christ  separately  considered,  as  when  he  is  said  to  suifer,  or 
to  die,  or  to  be  ignorant ;  but  it  is  the  official  subordination 
of  the  incarnate  Son  to  God  as  God.  The  words  auros  6  vtos, 
the  Son  himself,  here  designate,  as  in  so  many  other  places, 
not  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  as  such,  but  that  person 
as  clothed  in  our  nature.  And  the  subjection  spoken  of,  is 
not  of  the  former,  but  of  the  latter,  i.  e.  not  of  the  Son  as  Son, 
but  of  the  Son  as  incarnate ;  and  the  subjection  itself  is  official 
and  therefore"  perfectly  consistent  with  equality  of  nature. 

There  is  another  difficulty  connected  with  this  verse  which 
it  may  be  well  to  notice.  According  to  the  Scriptures  and 
the  creeds  of  all  the  great  historical  churches  (Greek,  Latin, 
Lutheran  and  Reformed),  the  term  Son,  as  applied  to  Christ, 
designates  his  divine  nature.  It  is  a  term  of  nature  and  not 
of  office.  He  was  from  eternity  the  Son  of  God.  Yet  it  is  of 
the  Son  that  subjection  is  here  predicated.  This  is  urged  as 
an  argument  against  his  eternal  sonship.  The  fact,  however, 
is,  that  the  person  of  Christ  may  be  designated  from  one  na 
ture,  when  the  predicate  belongs  either  to  the  opposite  nature 
or  to  the  whole  person.  That  is,  he  may  be  called  God  when 
what  is  said  of  him  is  true  only  of  his  human  nature  or  of  his 
complex  person  as  God  and  man ;  and  he  may  be  called  man, 
when  what  is  said  is  true  only  of  his  divine  nature.  Thus  he 
is  called  the  Son  of  Man  when  omnipresence  and  omniscience 
are  ascribed  to  him ;  and  he  is  called  God,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Lord  of  glory  when  he  is  said  to  die.  These  passages  do  not 
prove  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  every  where  present ; 
or  that  his  divine  nature  suffered  and  died.  Neither  do  such 
expressions  as  that  in  the  text  prove  that  the  Son  as  such  is 
inferior  to  the  Father,  nor  that  the  term  Son  is  not  a  scriptural, 
designation  of  his  divine  nature.  The  principle  here  adverted 
to  is  so  important,  and  serves  to  explain  so  many  passages  of. 
Scripture,  that  it  will  bear  to  be  often  repeated. 

That  God  may  be  all  in  all.  Before  the  ascension  of 
Christ,  God  reigned  as  God ;  after  that  event  he  reigned  and 
still  reigns  through  the  Theanthropos ;  when  the  end 


conies, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  28.  335 

the  Theanthropos  will  deliver  up  this  administrative  kingdom, 
and  God  again  be  all  in  all.  Such  is  the  representation  of 
Scripture,  and  such  seems  to  be  the  simple  meaning  of  this 
passage.  When  our  Lord  ascended  up  on  high  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth  was  given  to  him.  It  was  given  to  him  then, 
and  therefore  not  possessed  before.  He  is  to  retain  this  dele 
gated  power  in  his  character  of  Mediator,  God-man,  until  his 
enemies  are  put  under  his  feet.  Then  he,  the  God-man,  is  to 
deliver  it  up.  And  God  as  God  will  reign  supreme.  The 
phrase  here  used,  ra  TTOLVTO.  (or  TruvTa)  eV  Tracnv,  all  in  all,  de 
pends  (as  is  the  case  with  all  similar  formulas),  for  its  precise 
meaning  on  the  connection.  If  words  be  taken  by  themselves, 
and  made  to  mean  any  thing  which  their  signification  will  ad 
mit,  without  regard  to  the  context  or  to  the  analogy  of  Scrip 
ture,  then  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God  is  effectually  sub 
verted.  No  book,  human  or  divine,  can  be  interpreted  on  a 
principle  so  unreasonable.  Some,  hoAvever,  regardless  of  this 
universally  admitted  rule  of  interpretation,  say  that  these 
words  teach  that  the  whole  universe  is  to  be  merged  in  God — 
he  is  to  become  all  in  all — he  will  be  all,  and  all  will  be  God. 
Others  limit  the  last  all  to  intelligent  creatures,  and  the  sense 
in  which  God  is  all  is  restricted  to  his  gracious  influence  ;  so 
that  while  the  continued  personal  existence  of  rational  crea 
tures  is  provided  for,  it  is  assumed  that  God  is  to  reign 
supreme  in  all  intelligent  beings.  All  sin  and  evil  will  thus  be 
banished  from  the  whole  universe.  This  interpretation  is,  in 
the  first  place,  perfectly  arbitrary.  If  the  meaning  of  the 
words  is  to  be  pressed  beyond  the  limits  assigned  by  the  con 
text  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  why  limit  ev  iraa-i  to  intel 
ligent  creatures,  and  TO,  iravra  to  mere  gracious  control  ?  The 
passage  teaches  pantheism,  if  it  teaches  universalism.  Second 
ly,  this  interpretation  is  contrary  to  the  context.  Paul  is 
speaking  simply  of  the  continuance  of  the  mediatorial  dominion 
of  Christ  over  the  universe.  That  dominion  was  given  to  him 
for  a  specific  purpose ;  when  that  purpose  is  accomplished,  he 
will  give  it  up,  and  God,  instead  of  reigning  through  Christ, 
will  be  recognized  as  the  immediate  sovereign  of  the  universe ; 
his  co-equal,  co-eternal  Son,  clothed  in  our  nature,  being,  as 
the  everlasting  head  of  the  redeemed,  officially  subordinate  to 
him.  In  other  words,  the  whole  question,  so  to  speak,  is 
whose  hands  are  to  hold  the  reins  of  universal  dominion. 
They  are  now  in  the  hands  of  Christ ;  hereafter  they  are  to  be 
in  the  hands  of  God  as  such.  The  passage  does  not  teach  us 


336  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  28.29. 

the  design  of  redemption,  but  what  is  to  happen  when  the  re 
demption  of  God's  people  is  accomplished.  Then  the  Messi 
anic  reign  is  to  cease,  and  God  is  to  rule  supreme  over  a  uni 
verse  reduced  to  order,  the  people  of  God  being  saved,  and 
the  finally  impenitent  shut  up  with  Satan  and  his  angels  in  the 
prison  of  despair.  Thirdly,  the  interpretation  which  makes 
this  passage  teach  the  restoration  of  all  intelligent  creatures 
to  holiness,  is  contrary  to  the  express  declarations  of  Scrip 
tures  and  to  the  faith  of  the  church  universal.  This  the  most 
accomplished  of  its  advocates  virtually  admit.  See  for  exam 
ple  Olshausen's  commentary  on  this  epistle.  If  the  evidence 
in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  everlasting  perdition  of  the 
wicked  were  not  overwhelming,  it  never  could  have  become  a 
part  of  the  faith  of  the  universal  church.  And  that  doctrine 
being  once  established  on  its  own  grounds,  doubtful  passages 
must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  it. 

There  is  another  orthodox  interpretation  of  this  passage. 
It  is  assumed  to  treat  of  the  final  result  of  the  work  of  re 
demption.  God  will  reign  supreme  in  all.  But  the  all  is  re 
stricted  to  the  subjects  of  redemption.  The  whole  chapter 
treats  of  those  who  are  in  Christ.  It  is  of  their  resurrection, 
and  of  the  effect  of  redemption  in  their  case,  the  apostle  is  as 
sumed  to  speak.  c  All  who  are  in  Christ  shall  be  made  alive, 
v.  22,  and  God  shall  reign  in  them  all/  The  sense  is  good, 
but  this  interpretation  overlooks  what  intervenes  between  vs. 
22  and  28  concerning  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  its  being 
given  up. 

29.  Else  what  shall  they  do  which  are  baptized  for 
the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  ?  why  are  they  then 
baptized  for  the  dead  ? 

The  apostle,  after  the  preceding  digression,  returns  to  his 
argument  for  the  resurrection.  '  The  dead  are  certainly  to  be 
raised,  otherwise  (eTm)  what  shall  they  do  who  are  baptized 
for  the  dead  ? '  This  practice  (whatever  it  was)  of  baptizing 
for  the  dead,  takes  for  granted  that  the  dead  are  to  rise. 
What  shall  they  do,  i.  e.  What  account  will  they  give  of  them 
selves  ?  what  explanation  of  their  conduct  can  they  make  ? 
The  most  important  of  the  numerous  interpretations  of  this 
verse  admit  of  being  reduced  to  the  following  classes :  1.  Those 
which  turn  on  the  sense  given  to  the  word  baptize.  2.  Those 
which  depend  on  the  explanation  of  the  preposition  we/),  for. 


I.  CORINTHIANS   15,  29.  337 

3.  Those  which  assume  an  ellipsis  in  the  verse.  4.  Those 
which  turn  on  the  explanation  of  roii/  venpuv,  the  dead.  1.  The 
simplest  and  most  natural  interpretation  takes  the  word  bap 
tize  in  its  ordinary  sense.  c  What  do  they  do  who  allow  them 
selves  to  be  baptized  in  the  place  of  the  dead  ? '  This  supposes 
that  the  custom  of  vicarious  baptism,  as  afterwards  practised 
by  the  Cerinthians  and  Marcionites,  had  already  been  intro 
duced  into  Corinth.  Among  those  heretical  sects,  if  a  cate 
chumen  died  before  baptism,  some  one  was  baptized  in  his 
name,  in  order  that  he  might  be  enrolled  among  Christians  and 
receive  the  benefit  of  the  ordinance.  The  objections  to  this  in 
terpretation  are,  that  the  practice  was  superstitious,  founded 
on  wrong  views  of  the  nature  and  efficacy  of  baptism.  2.  That 
there  are  no  traces  elsewhere  of  the  prevalence  of  vicarious 
baptism  before  the  second  century.  3.  That  it  was  universally 
condemned  by  the  churches  as  heretical.  4.  That  it  cannot 
be  supposed  that  the  apostle  would  refer  to  such  a  supersti 
tious  custom  without  condemning  it.  These  objections  are  in 
a  measure  met  by  the  following  considerations  :  1.  Paul,  so  far 
from  intimating  any  approbation  of  the  custom,  distinctly  sep 
arates  himself  from  its  abettors.  He  does  not  say,  '  What  shall 
we  do ' — '  What  shall  they  do.'  It  was  something  with  which 
he  had  no  fellowship.  2.  That  this  method  of  arguing  against 
others  from  their  own  concessions,  is  one  which  the  apostle 
frequently  employs.  3.  That  when  his  mind  is  full  of  a  partic 
ular  subject  he  does  not  leave  it,  to  pronounce  judgment  on 
things  incidentally  introduced.  Thus,  in  chap.  11,  5,  when 
treating  of  women  speaking  in  the  church  unveiled,  he  ex 
presses  no  disapprobation  of  their  speaking  in  public,  although 
he  afterwards  condemned  it.  A  still  more  striking  example 
of  the  same  thing  is  to  be  found  10,  8,  where  he  speaks  of  the 
Corinthians  "  sitting  at  meat  in  an  idol's  temple,"  without  any 
disapprobation  of  the  thing  itself,  but  only  of  its  influence  on 
the  weaker  brethren.  Yet,  in  10,  14-22,  he  proves  that  the 
thing  itself  was  an  act  of  idolatry.  4.  That  the  entire  disap 
pearance  of  this  custom  in  the  orthodox  church,  although  other 
superstitious  observances  not  less  objectionable  soon  prevailed, 
is  probably  to  be  referred  to  the  practice  having  been  forbid 
den  by  the  apostle  as  soon  as  he  reached  Corinth.  This  may 
have  been  one  of  the  things  which  he  left  "  to  be  set  in  order 
when  he  came,"  11,  34.  5.  The  state  of  the  church  in  Corinth, 
as  disclosed  by  this  epistle,  was  not  such  as  to  render  the 
adoption  of  such  a  custom  by  a  portion  of  the  people,  incredi- 

15 


338  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  29.30. 

ble.  Baptizing  for  the  dead  was  not  so  bad  as  sitting  at  the 
table  of  devils,  10,  21.  A  second  interpretation  under  this 
head  gives  the  word  baptize  the  figurative  sense  which  it  has 
in  Matt.  20,  22.  Luke  12,  50,  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized 
with  ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be  accomplished  !  " 
According  to  this  view,  Paul  here  refers  to  the  baptism  of 
afflictions.  '  Why  do  men  suffer  so  for  the  hopelessly  dead  ? 
if  the  dead  are  not  to  rise,  what  is  the  use  of  suffering  so  much 
for  them  ?  i.  e.  of  labouring  so  much,  and  enduring  so  much  for 
men  who,  when  dead,  are  never  to  live  again.'  This,  however, 
evidently  puts  a  sense  on  the  word  dead,  which  it  will  not  bear. 
It  is  assumed  to  designate  not  those  actually  dead,  but  men 
who  when  dead  are  not  to  rise  again. 

Of  the  second  class  of  interpretations  some  propose  to  ren 
der  vTrep  by  over.  c  Why  do  they  baptize  over  the  dead  ?  i.  e. 
over  their  graves.'  Sometimes,  for  the  sake  of  expressing 
their  faith  in  the  resurrection,  Christians  are  said  to  have  been 
baptized  over  the  graves  of  the  martyrs.  Others  say  that 
means  in  the  place  of.  '  Why  should  men  be  baptized  in 


place  of  the  dead  ?  i.  e.  to  supply  their  places  in  the  church,  and 
thus  keep  up  the  ranks  of  believers.'  A  third  class  propose 
to  take  veKpwv  for  the  singular,  and  to  read,  '  Why  are  they 
baptized  for  one  dead  ?  '  Others  say  the  meaning  is,  for  the 
dead,  i  e.  for  bodies.  What  is  the  use  of  being  baptized  for  a 
dead  body  ?  a  body  which  is  never  to  live  again.  He  that  is 
baptized  receives  the  ordinance  believing  that  his  body  is  not 
to  remain  dead.  Calvin  and  others  understand  the  dead  to 
mean  here,  those  about  to  die.  4  Why  should  baptism  be  ad 
ministered  for  those  on  the  verge  of  the  grave  —  if  there  be  no 
resurrection  ?  '  Finally,  some  suppose  the  passage  is  elliptical. 
Fully  expressed  it  would  be,  '  What  do  they  do  who  are  bap 
tized  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  »  i.  e.  in  hope  of  the 
resurrection  which  was  professed  by  all  who  receive  baptism. 
The  darkness  which  rests  on  this  passage  can  never  be  entirely 
cleared  away,  because  the  reference  is  to  a  custom  of  which 
no  account  is  extant.  If  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  belongs  tc 
the  latter  member  of  the  verse.  c  If  the  dead  rise  not  at  all, 
why  are  they  baptized  for  them  ?  '  Instead  of  ran/  vtKpuv,  the 
dead,  modern  editors  read  avruv,  them. 

30.  And  why  stand  we  in  jeopardy  every  hour  ? 
Here  Paul  speaks  for  himself.      With  baptizing  for  the 


I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  30.31.32.  339 

dead,  he  had  nothing  to  do.  l  Why  do  they  allow  themselves,' 
he  asks,  '  to  be  baptized  for  the  dead  ? '  That,  as  would  ap 
pear,  is  what  his  opponents  did.  As  an  additional  argument  for 
the  doctrine  which  he  is  defending,  he  urges,  that  its  denial 
destroys  at  least  one  of  the  great  motives  to  self-denial.  '  If 
there  be  no  resurrection,  on  which  all  our  hopes  as  Christians 
depend,  why  should  we  voluntarily  encounter  perpetual  dan 
ger  ? '  It  is  to  be  remembered  that,  according  to  Paul's  doctrine 
and  previous  argument,  if  there  be  no  resurrection,  then  Christ 
is  not  risen,  and  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  there  is  no  atonement, 
no  reconciliation  with  God.  We  are  in  a  state  of  final  and 
hopeless  condemnation.  What  is  the  use  of  labouring  to  save 
men,  if  there  be  no  salvation  ? 

31.  I  protest  by  your  rejoicing  which  I  have  in 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  I  die  daily. 

Paul  solemnly  assures  his  readers  that  he  was  constantly 
in  jeopardy,  for,  says  he,  I  die  daily,  i.  e.  I  am  constantly  ex 
posed  to  death,  2  Cor.  4,  10.  By  your  boasting  which  I  have. 
This  is  not  the  meaning,  but,  '•By  my  boasting  concerning  you? 
That  is,  4  as  surely  as  I  boast  of  you,  and  rejoice  over  you.' 
The  pronoun  vptripav,  your,  is  to  be  taken  objectively  (as  in 
Rom.  11,  31 ;  comp.  also  1  Cor.  9,  12)  the  boasting  of  which 
you  are  the  object.  Which  I  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  i.  e.  which 
I  have  in  communion  w^ith  Christ.  It  was  a  rejoicing  which 
he,  as  a  Christian  minister,  had  over  them  as  the  seals  of  his 
ministry. 

32.  If  after  the  manner  of  men  I  have  fought  with 
beasts  at  Ephesus,  what  advantageth  it  me,  if  the  dead 
rise  not  ?  let  us  eat  and  drink ;  for  to-morrow  we  die. 

The  apostle  refers  to  one,  and  probably  a  recent  instance 
of  his  exposure  to  death.  If  after  the  manner  of  men,  i.  e. 
with  those  views  and  interests  which  determine  the  conduct 
of  ordinary  men,  i.  e.  without  hope  in  the  resurrection.  I  have 
fought  with  beasts  at  Ephesus.  This  may  be  understood 
either  literally  or  figuratively.  Against  the  literal  interpreta 
tion  is  urged,  1 .  The  improbability  that,  as  a  Roman  citizen, 
he^ should  have  been  subjected  to  that  punishment.  But  his 
being  a  Roman  citizen  did  not  prevent  his  being  thrice  beaten 
with  rods,  by  Roman  magistrates,  or  at  least,  by  others  than 


340  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  32.33. 

Jews,  and  contrary  to  law,  2  Cor.  11,  25.  2.  The  silence  of 
The  Acts  on  the  subject.  But  we  learn  from  2  Cor.  11,  23-29, 
that  scarcely  a  tithe  of  what  Paul  did  and  suffered  is  recorded 
in  The  Acts.  3.  The  omission  of  any  reference  to  his  exposure 
to  wild  beasts  in  the  long  enumeration  of  his  sufferings  in 
2  Cor.  11,  23-29.  This  is  a  more  serious  objection.  Consider 
ing,  moreover,  that  Paul  was  at  Ephesus  exposed  to  the  vio 
lent  tumult  of  the  people,  and  that  this  expression  is  often  used 
by  the  ancients  figuratively  for  contests  with  enraged  men, 
the  probability  is,  that  it  is  to  be  so  understood  here.  What 
to  me  is  the  advantage  ?  '  If  I  have  no  other  views  or  hopes 
than  ordinary  men,  whose  expectations  are  confined  to  this 
world,  what  is  the  use  of  incurring  so  many  dangers  ? '  If  the 
dead  rise  not.  This  clause  does  not  belong  to  the  one  preced 
ing,  as  it  is  pointed  in  our  version,  but  to  what  follows.  '  If 
the  dead  rise  not,  let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die.' 
The  natural  consequence  of  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  resur 
rection,  involving  as  it  does  the  denial  of  the  gospel,  and  the 
consequent  rejection  of  all  hope  of  salvation,  is  to  make  men 
reckless,  and  to  lead  them  to  abandon  themselves  to  mere 
sensual  enjoyments.  If  man  has  no  glorious  hereafter,  he  nat 
urally  sinks  towards  the  level  of  the  brutes,  whose  destiny  he 
is  to  share. 


33.  Be  not  deceived  :  evil  communications  corrupt 
good  manners. 

This  warning  flows  naturally  from  what  had  been  said.  If 
the  tendency  of  the  denial  of  the  resurrection  be  to  render 
men  reckless  and  sensual,  then  the  Corinthians  should  not  be 
deceived  by  the  plausible  arguments  or  specious  conduct  of 
the  errorists  among  them.  They  should  avoid  them,  under 
the  conviction  that  all  evil  is  contagious.  Evil  communica 
tions.  The  word  properly  means  a  being  together,  companion 
ship.  It  is  contact,  association  with  evil,  that  is  declared  to 
be  corrupting.  This  is  a  fact  of  common  experience,  and 
therefore  the  apostle  expresses  it  in  a  verse  borrowed  from 
the  Greek  poet,  Menander,  which  had  probably  become  a 
proverb.  It  is  only  when  men  associate  with  the  wicked 
with  the  desire  and  purpose  to  do  them  good,  that  they  can 
rely  on  the  protection  of  God  to  preserve  them  from  con 
tamination. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  34.  341 

34.  Awake  to  righteousness,  and  sin  not ;  for  some 
have  not  the  knowledge  of  God  :  I  speak  (this)  to  your 
shame. 

Surrounded  by  evil  teachers,  the  Corinthians  had  need  not 
only  of  being  on  their  guard  against  deception,  but  also  of 
vigilance.  Awake.  The  word  properly  means,  to  become 
sober,  to  arouse  from  a  state  of  drunkenness  or  torpor.  The 
call  is  to  prompt  exertion  to  shake  off  the  delusion  under  which 
they  were  lying  as  to  their  security.  To  righteousness,  liter-| 
ally,  righteously,  i.  e.  in  a  proper  manner.  4  Awake  rightly,' 
or,  as  Luther  renders  it,  Wake  right  up.  And  sin  not,  i.  e. 
do  not  allow  yourselves  to  be  carried  away  into  sin.  This  was 
the  end  to  be  answered  by  their  vigilance.  There  was  need 
of  this  exhortation,  for  some  have  not  the  knowledge  of  God ; 
literally,  have  ignorance  of  God.  They  are  ignorant  of  God ; 
and  therefore  they  deny  the  resurrection.  Comp.  Matt.  22, 
29,  where  our  Lord  says  to  the  Sadducees  who  denied  the 
resurrection,  "  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the 
power  of  God."  I  speak  this  to  your  shame.  It  should  make 
you  ashamed  that  there  are  men  among  you  capable  of  calling 
in  question  one  of  the  great  essential  facts  of  the  gospel — the 
resurrection  of  the  dead. 

Nature  of  the  resurrection  body,  vs.  35-58. 

Having  proved  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  the  apostle 
comes  to  illustrate  its  nature,  or  to  teach  with  what  kind  of 
bodies  the  dead  are  to  rise.  It  seems  that  the  great  objection 
against  the  doctrine  in  the  minds  of  his  readers  rested  on  the 
assumption  that  our  future  bodies  are  to  be  of  the  same  nature 
with  those  which  we  now  have ;  that  is,  natural  bodies  con 
sisting  of  flesh  and  blood,  and  sustained  by  air,  food  and  sleep. 
Paul  says  this  is  a  foolish  assumption.  Our  future  bodies  may 
be  material  and  identical  with  our  present  bodies,  and  yet  or 
ganized  in  a  very  different  way.  You  plant  a  seed ;  it  does 
not  come  up  a  seed,  but  a  flower.  Why  then  may  not  the 
future  be  to  the  present  body  what  the  flower  is  to  the  seed  ? 
vs.  35-37.  Matter  admits  of  indefinite  varieties  in  organiza 
tion.  There  is  not  only  immense  diversity  in  the  vegetable 
productions  of  the  earth,  but  even  flesh  is  variously  modified 
in  the  different  orders  of  animals,  vs.  38.  39.  This  is  true  not 
only  as  to  the  earth,  for  there  are  heavenly  as  well  as  earthly 


342  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  34.35. 

bodies.  And  even  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  differ  from  each 
other  in  glory ;  why  then  may  not  our  future  differ  from  our 
present  "bodies  in  glory?  vs.  40.41.  Such  not  only  may  be, 
but  will  be  the  case.  The  body  deposited  in  the  grave  is  cor 
ruptible,  mean,  weak,  and,  in  a  word,  natural ;  as  raised  from 
the  grave,  it  will  be  incorruptible,  glorious,  powerful,  and 
spiritual,  vs.  42-44.  This  is  according  to  Scripture.  Adam 
was  created  with  a  natural  body,  adapted  to  an  earthly  state 
of  existence ;  Christ,  as  a  life-giving  spirit,  has  a  spiritual  body. 
As  Adam  was  before  Christ,  so  our  earthly  tabernacles  are 
before  our  heavenly  ones.  As  we  have  borne  the  image  of 
the  earthly,  we  shall  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly,  vs.  45-49. 
It  is  freely  admitted  that  flesh  and  blood,  i.  e.  bodies  organ 
ized  as  ours  now  are,  are  unfit  for  heaven.  Corruption  cannot 
inherit  incorruption,  v.  50.  But  our  bodies  are  to  be  changed. 
This  change  shall  be  instantaneous  and  at  the  last  day.  It 
shall  embrace  both  the  living  and  the  dead.  Corruption  shall 
put  on  incorruption,  mortality  shall  put  on  immortality,  vs. 
51-53.  When  this  is  done,  the  original  promise  that  death 
shall  be  swallowed  up  in  victory,  will  be  fully  accomplished, 
v.  54.  Death,  therefore,  to  the  believer,  has  lost  its  sting,  and 
the  grave  is  conquered.  Death  has  no  sting  but  sin ;  sin  has 
no  strength  but  from  the  law ;  the  law  has  no  power  over 
those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  therefore  thanks  be  to  God, 
who  giveth  us  the  victory  through  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord! 
vs.  55-57.  Seeing  then  that  we  have  such  a  glorious  here 
after,  we  should  be  steadfast,  unmoveable,  always  abounding 
in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  v.  58. 

35.  But  some  (man)  will  say,  How  are  the  dead 
raised  up  ?  and  with  what  body  do  they  come  ? 

The  discussion  of  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  being  ended, 
the  apostle  comes  to  consider  the  manner  of  it.  He  supposes 
some  objector  to  ask,  How  are  the  dead  raised  up  ?  This 
may  mean,  How  can  a  corrupted  and  disorganized  body  be 
restored  to  life  ?  And  the  next  question,  With  what  body  do 
they  come  f  may  refer  to  the  result  of  the  process.  What  is 
to  be  the  nature  of  our  future  bodies  ?  Or  the  latter  question 
may  be  merely  explanatory  of  the  former,  so  that  only  one 
point  is  presented.  How,  i.  e.  with  what  kind  of  body  are  the 
dead  raised  ?  There  are,  however,  two  distinct  questions,  for 
although  the  two  are  not  connected  by  KCU,  and,  but  by  the 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  35.36.  343 

particle  8e,  which  might  be  merely  explanatory,  yet  the  apos 
tle  really  answers,  in  what  follows,  both  questions,  viz.,  How 
it  is  possible  for  life  to  come  out  of  death,  _  and,  What  is  to  be 
the  nature  of  the  body  after  the  resurrection.  The  latter  dif 
ficulty  was  the  main  one,  and  therefore  to  that  the  most  of 
what  follows  refers.  The  great  objection  in  the  minds  of  the 
Corinthians  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was  evidently 
the  same  as  that  of  the  Sadducees.  Both  supposed  our  future 
bodies  are  to  be  like  our  present  ones.  Our  Lord's  answer  to 
the  Sadducees,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  that  which  Paul  gives 
to  the  Corinthian  objectors.  The  future  body  is  not  to  bo 
like  the  present.  To  reject  a  plainly-revealed  and  most  im 
portant  doctrine  on  such  grounds  as  these  is  wicked  as  well  as 
foolish,  and  therefore  the  apostle  says  in  the  next  verse- 

36.  (Thou)  fool,    that  which  thou  sowest  is  not 
quickened,  except  it  die. 

It  is  not,  Thou  fool,  but  simply,  Fool!    an  exclamation 
both  of  disapprobation  and  contempt.     Luke  12,  20.    Rom.  1, 
22     Eph.  5, 15.     It  does  not,  however,  necessarily  express  any 
bitterness  of  feeling ;  for  our  blessed  Lord  said  to  his  doubting 
disciples,  "  O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the 
prophets  have  spoken !  »  Luke  24,  25.     It  was  the  senseless 
ness  of  the  objection  that  roused  the  apostle's  indignation. 
The  body  cannot  live  again  because  it  dies.     Fool !  says  Paul, 
a  seed  cannot  live  unless  it  does  die.     Disorganization  is  the 
necessary  condition  of  reorganization.     If  the  seed  remain  a 
seed  there  is  an  end  of  it.     But  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth 
much  fruit,  John  12,  24.     The  seed  is  as  much  disorganized, 
it  as  really  ceases  to  be  a  seed  when  sown  in  the  ground,  as 
the  body  when  laid  in  the  grave.     If  the  one  dies,  the  other 
dies.     Death  is  not  annihilation,  but  disorganization ;  the  pass 
ing  from  one  form  or  mode  of  existence  to  another.     How 
then  can  the  disorganization  of  the  body  in  the  grave  be  an 
objection  to  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  ?     It  may  be  said 
that  the  apostle  does  not  pursue  the  objection;  that  the  body 
is  not  only  disorganized  but  dispersed ;  its  elements  scattered 
over  the  earth,  and  embraced  in  new  combinations ;  whereas 
in  the  seed  the  germ  remains,  so  that  there  is  no  interruption 
of  the  organic  life  of  the  plant.     To  those  who  make  this  ob 
jection  our  Saviour's  answer  is,  that  they  err,  "not  knowing 


344  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  36.37. 

the  power  of  God."  Who  knows  where  the  principle  of  the 
organic  life  of  the  body  is  ?  It  may  be  in  the  soul,  which  when 
the  time  comes  may  unfold  itself  into  a  new  body,  gathering 
or  regathering  its  materials  according  to  its  own  law ;  just  as 
the  principle  of  vegetable  life  in  the  seed  unfolds  itself  into 
some  gorgeous  flower,  gathering  from  surrounding  nature  the 
materials  for  its  new  organization.  The  identity  between  the 
present  and  future  body  is  implied  in  the  apostle's  illustration. 
But  it  is  his  object  neither  to  assert  that  identity,  nor  to  ex 
plain  its  nature.  The  latter  is  a  very  subordinate  point.  The 
Bible  clearly  teaches  that  our  bodies  hereafter  are  to  be  the 
same  as  those  which  we  now  have  ;  but  it  nowhere  teaches  us 
wherein  that  sameness  consists.  In  what  sense  is  a  sprouting 
acorn  the  same  with  the  full-grown  oak  ?  Not  in  substance, 
not  in  form,  not  in  appearance.  It  is,  however,  the  same  indi 
vidual  organism.  The  same  is  true  of  the  human  body.  It  is 
the  same  in  old  age  that  it  was  in  infancy.  But  in  what  sense  ? 
The  materials  of  which  the  body  is  composed  change  many 
times  in  the  course  of  an  ordinary  life,  yet  the  body  remains 
the  same.  We  may  rest  assured  that  our  future  bodies  will 
be  the  same  with  those  which  we  now  have  in  a  high  and 
satisfying  sense,  though  until  the  time  comes  we  may  be  as 
little  able  to  explain  the  nature  of  that  identity  as  we  are  to 
tell  what  constitutes  the  identity  of  the  body  in  this  life.  The 
same  body  which  is  sown  in  tears,  shall  be  reaped  in  joy.  To 
doubt  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  because  we  cannot  under 
stand  the  process,  is,  as  the  apostle  says,  a  proof  of  folly. 

37.  And  that  which  thou  sowest,  thou  sowest  not 
that  body  that  shall  be,  but  bare  grain,  it  may  chance 
of  wheat,  or  of  some  other  (grain) : 

The  first  clause  of  this  verse  stands,  as  it  were,  absolutely. 
And  as  to  that  which  thou  sowest — thou  sowest  not  the  body 
that  shall  be.  That  is,  you  do  not  sow  the  plant,  but  the  bare 
grain,  i.  e.  the  simple,  naked  grain — it  may  be  of  wheat,  or  of 
some  other  grain.  The  point  of  the  illustration  is,  that  what 
comes  up  is  very  different  from  that  which  is  deposited  in  the 
ground.  You  sow  a  seed,  a  plant  appears.  You  sow  a  natu 
ral,  corruptible  body ;  a  spiritual,  incorruptible  body  appears. 
Nature  itself  therefore  teaches  that  the  objection  that  the 
future  body  must  be  like  the  present,  is  of  no  force. 


I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  38.39.40.  345 

38.  But  God  giveth  it  a  body  as  it  hath  pleased 
him,  and  to  every  seed  his  own  body. 

What  is  deposited  in  the  earth  is  very  different  from  that 
which  springs  from  it.  Every  seed  produces  its  own  plant. 
The  product  depends  on  the  will  of  God.  It  was  determined 
at  the  creation,  and  therefore  the  apostle  says  that  God,  in 
the  continual  agency  of  his  providence,  gives  to  each  seed  its 
own  appropriate  product,  as  he  willed,  i.  e.  he  originally  pur 
posed.  The  point  of  this  is,  if  God  thus  gives  to  all  the  pro 
ducts  of  the  earth  each  its  own  form,  why  may  he  not 
determine  the  form  in  which  the  body  is  to  appear  at  the 
resurrection  ?  You  cannot  infer  from  looking  at  a  seed  what 
the  plant  is  to  be ;  it  is  very  foolish,  therefore,  to  attempt  to 
determine  from  our  present  bodies  what  is  to  be  the  nature 
of  our  bodies  hereafter. 

39.  All  flesh  (is)  not  the  same  flesh :  but  (there  is) 
one  (kind  of)  flesh  of  men,  another  flesh  of  beasts,  an 
other  of  fishes,  (and)  another  of  birds. 

If  even  here,  where  the  general  conditions  of  life  are  the 
same,  we  see  such  diversity  in  animal  organizations,  flesh  and 
blood  appearing  in  so  many  forms,  why  should  it  be  assumed 
that  the  bodyliereafter  must  be  the  same  cumbrous  vehicle 
of  the  soul  that  it  is  now  ? 

40.  (There  are)  also  celestial  bodies,  and  bodies 
terrestrial :  but  the  glory  of  the  celestial  (is)  one,  and 
the  (glory)  of  the  terrestrial  (is)  another. 

There  is  no  limit  to  be  set  to  the  possible  or  actual  modifi 
cations  of  matter.  We  not  only  see  it  in  all  the  diversified 
forms  of  animal  and  vegetable  life,  but  in  the  still  greater  di 
versities  of  heavenly  and  earthly  bodies.  What  Paul  here 
means  by  bodies  celestial,  is  doubtful.  1.  Many  suppose  the 
reference  is  to  angels,  either  on  the  assumption  that  they  too 
have  bodies,  or  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  forms  in  which 
they  appear  to  men.  When  they  become  visible  they  must 
assume  some  material  vehicle,  which  was  always  luminous  or 

glorious.      Of  the  angel  who  appeared  at  the  sepulchre  of 
hrist  it  is  said,  "  His  countenance  was  like  lightning,  and  his 
raiment  white  as  snow,"  Matt.  28,  3.     There  is  a  great  con- 
15* 


346  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  40.41.42. 

trast  between  the  bodies  of  these  celestial  beings  and  those  of 
men.  2.  Others  suppose  that  the  reference  is  to  the  bodies 
of  the  saints  in  heaven.  There  are  many  kinds  of  bodies  here 
on  earth,  and  there  are  also  celestial  as  well  as  terrestrial 
bodies.  The  one  differing  from  the  other  in  glory.  3.  The 
common  opinion  is  that  the  apostle  means  what  is  now  gene 
rally  meant  by  "  the  heavenly  bodies,"  viz.,  the  sun,  moon 
and  stars.  To  this  it  is  objected  that  it  is  to  make  the  apostle 
use  the  language  of  modern  astronomy.  This,  however,  has 
little  force ;  for  whatever  the  ancients  conceived  the  sun,  moon 
and  stars  to  be,  they  regarded  them  as  bodies,  and  used  the 
word  crw/xa  in  reference  to  them  or  to  the  universe.  Galen, 
who  was  born  not  more  than  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the 
date  of  this  epistle,  uses  nearly  the  same  language  as  the 
apostle  does.  He  too  contrasts  TO,  avco  {rw/xara  (meaning  the 
sun,  moon  and  stars,)  with  ra  yrj'iva  o-co/xara.  See  Wetstein. 
The  common  interpretation  is  also  sustained  by  the  context, 
for  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  mentioned  in  the  next  verse  are 
evidently  included  in  the  heavenly  bodies  here  intended. 

41.  (There  is)  one  glory  of  the  sun,  and  another 
glory  of  the  moon,  and  another  glory  of  the  stars  ;  for 
(one)  star  differeth  from  (another)  star  in  glory. 

Not  only  do  the  heavenly  bodies  differ  from  the  earthly 
bodies  in  glory,  but  there  is  great  diversity  among  the  heaven 
ly  bodies  themselves.  How  different  is  the  sun  from  the  moon, 
the  moon  from  the  stars,  and  even  one  star  from  another. 
Standing,  therefore,  as  we  do  in  the  midst  of  this  wonderful 
universe,  in  which  we  see  matter  in  every  conceivable  modifi 
cation,  from  a  clod  of  earth  to  a  sunbeam,  from  dust  to  the 
lustre  of  the  human  eye,  how  unutterably  absurd  is  it  to  say 
that  if  we  are  to  have  bodies  hereafter,  they  must  be  as  gross, 
and  heavy,  and  as  corruptible  as  those  which  we  have  now. 

42.  So  also  (is)  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.     It 
is  sown  in  corruption,  it  is  raised  in  incorruption : 

So  also  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  That  is,  as  the 
heavenly  bodies  differ  from  the  earthly  bodies,  and  as  one  star 
differs  from  another  star,  so  the  resurrection  body  will  differ 
from  our  present  body.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  that  as 
one  star  differs  from  another  star  in  glory,  so  one  risen  believer 


I.  CORINTHIANS   15,  42.43.44.  347 

will  differ  from  another.  This,  no  doubt,  is  true  ;  but  it  is  not 
what  Paul  here  says  or  intimates.  His  object  is  simply  to  show 
the  absurdity  of  the  objection  founded  on  the  assumption  that 
the  body  hereafter  must  be  what  it  is  here.  He  shows  that  it 
may  be  a  body  and  yet  differ  as  much  from  what  it  is  now  as 
the  light  of  the  sun  differs  from  a  piece  of  clay.  He  therefore 
proceeds  to  show  wherein  this  difference  consists.  The  body 
is  sown  in  corruption;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption.  The 
figure  of  the  seed  is  again  introduced.  The  bodies  of  the 
saints  are  as  seed  sown  in  the  ground,  not  there  to  be  lost  or 
to  remain ;  but  at  the  appointed  time,  to  rise  in  a  state  the 
very  reverse  of  that  in  which  they  were  committed  to  the 
dust.  It  is  sown  in  corruption,  i.  e.  it  is  now  a  corruptible 
body,  constantly  tending  to  decay,  subject  to  disease  and 
death,  and  destined  to  entire  dissolution.  It  is  raised  in  in 
corruption.  Hereafter  it  will  be  imperishable ;  free  from  all 
impurity,  and  incapable  of  decay. 

43.  44.  It  is  sown  in  dishonour,  it  is  raised  in 
glory  :  it  is  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in  power : 
it  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body. 
There  is  a  natural  body,  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body. 

The  apostle  contemplates  the  body  as  at  the  moment  of 
interment,  and  therefore  these  predicates  are  to  be  understood 
with  special  reference  to  its  condition  at  that  time.  It  is  the 
dead  body  that  is  sown  in  dishonour,  despoiled  of  the  short 
lived  attractiveness  which  it  had  while  living.  It  is  raised  in 
glory,  i.  e.  in  that  resplendent  brightness  which  diffuses  light 
and  awakens  admiration.  It  is  to  be  fashioned  like  unto  the 
glorious  body  of  the  Son  of  God,  Phil.  3,  21.  It  is  sown  in 
weakness.  Nothing  is  more  absolutely  powerless  than  a  corpse 
— it  can  do  nothing  and  it  can  resist  nothing.  The  weakness 
which  belonged  to  it  in  life,  is  perfected  in  death.  It  is  raised  in 
power.  The  future  body  will  be  instinct  with  energy,  endow 
ed,  it  may  be,  with  faculties  of  which  we  have  now  no  concep 
tion.  It  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body. 
This  comprehends  all  that  has  been  said.  A  natural  body, 
crw/xa  I//UXIKOJ/,  is  a  body  of  which  the  i/o^,  or  animal  life,  is  the 
animating  principle ;  and  a  spiritual  body,  <roy>ia  Tn/eiyxaTiKoi/,  is 
a  body  adapted  to  the  urefyia,  the  rational,  immortal  principle 
of  our  nature.  We  know  from  experience  what  a  natural 
body  is.  It  is  a  body  which  has  essentially  the  same  proper- 


348  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  44.45. 

ties  as  those  of  brutes.  A  natural  body  consists  of  flesh  and 
blood ;  is  susceptible  of  pain  and  decay ;  and  needs  air,  food, 
and  rest.  It  is  a  mere  animal  body,  adapted  to  the  conditions 
of  an  earthly  existence.  What  a  spiritual  body  is,  we  know 
only  from  Paul's  description,  and  from  the  manifestation  of 
Christ  in  his  glorified  body.  We  know  that  it  is  incorrupti 
ble,  glorious,  and  powerful,  adapted  to  the  higher  state  of  ex 
istence  in  heaven,  and  therefore  not  adapted  to  an  earthly  con 
dition.  Spiritual,  in  this  connection,  does  not  mean  ethereal, 
refined,  much  less  made  of  spirit,  which  would  be  a  contra 
diction.  Nor  does  it  mean  animated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  as  o-w/m  \l/v\LK.6v  is  a  body  adapted  to  the  ^vxq  or  principle 
of  animal  life,  the  crto/xa  Trveu/xariKov  is  a  body  adapted  to  the 
Trvev/xa  or  principle  of  rational  life.  The  Bible  uses  these  terms 
just  as  we  do,  without  intending  to  teach  that  the  i/o>x>j  or 
life,  is  a  distinct  substance  or  subject  from  the  Tn/eC/xo.  or 
rational  spirit,  but  only  that  as  we  have  certain  attributes, 
considered  as  living  creatures,  in  common  with  irrational  ani 
mals,  so  we  have  now  a  body  suited  to  those  attributes ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  attributes  unspeakably  higher 
than  those  which  belong  to  brutes,  we  shall  hereafter  possess 
bodies  adapted  to  those  higher  attributes.  The  Bible  recog 
nizes  in  man  only  two  subjects  or  distinct  separable  substances, 
the  soul  and  body.  And  this  has  ever  been  a  fundamental 
principle  of  Christian  anthropology. 

T/iere  is  a  natural  body,  and  there  is  a  spiritual  body. 
This  is  a  vindication  of  the  apparently  contradictory  expres 
sion,  spiritual  body,  which,  according  to  the  letter,  is  tanta 
mount  to  immaterial  matter.  If,  however,  it  is  proper  to 
speak  of  o-w/xa  i/a^iKoy,  a  natural  body,  i.  e.  a  body  adapted  to 
the  principle  of  animal  life ;  it  is  right  to  speak  of  a  o-w/xa 
7n/eu//-aTiKov,  a  spiritual  body,  i.  e.  a  body  adapted  to  the  spirit. 
Lachmann,  Riickert,  and  Tischendorf,  after  the  ancient  MSS. 
and  versions,  adopt  the  reading  d  eon,  K.T.X.  If  there  is  a 
natural  body,  there  is  a  spiritual  body.  Just  as  certainly  as 
we  have  a  body  adapted  to  our  lower  nature,  we  shall  have 
one  adapted  to  our  higher  nature.  If  the  one  exists,  so  does 
the  other. 

45.  And  so  it  is  written,  The  first  man  Adam  was 
made  a  living  soul ;  the  last  Adam  (was  made)  a  quick 
ening  spirit. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  45.  349 

So  it  is  written,  i.  e.  the  Scriptures  are  in  accordance  with 
the  preceding  representation.  They  represent  Adam  as  having 
been  created  with  an  animal  nature,  and  therefore  as  having 
an  animal  body.  Whereas,  the  second  Adam  is  a  person  of 
a  far  higher  order.  The  proof  with  regard  to  the  nature  of 
Adam  does  not  rest  exclusively  on  the  words  quoted,  but  on 
the  whole  account  of  his  creation,  of  which  those  words  form 
a  part.  It  is  evident  from  the  entire  history,  that  Adam  was 
formed  for  an  existence  on  this  earth,  and  therefore  with  a 
body  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  being ;  in  its  essential 
attributes  not  differing  from  those  which  we  have  inherited 
from  him.  He  was  indeed  created  immortal.  Had  he  not 
sinned,  he  would  not  have  been  subject  to  death.  For  death 
is  the  wages  of  sin.  And  as  Paul  elsewhere  teaches,  death  is 
by  sin.  From  what  the  apostle,  however,  here  says  of  the 
contrast  between  Adam  and  Christ ;  of  the  earthly  and  per 
ishable  nature  of  the  former  as  opposed  to  the  immortal,  spi 
ritual  nature  of  the  latter,  it  is  plain  that  Adam  as  originally 
created  was  not,  as  to  his  body,  in  that  state  which  would  fit 
him  for  his  immortal  existence.  After  his  period  of  proba 
tion  was  passed,  it  is  to  be  inferred,  that  a  change  in  him 
would  have  taken  place,  analogous  to  that  which  is  to  take 
place  in  those  believers  who  shall  be  alive  when  Christ  comes. 
They  shall  not  die,  but  they  shall  be  changed.  Of  this  change 
in  the  constitution  of  his  body,  the  tree  of  life  was  probably 
constituted  the  sacrament.  For  when  he  sinned,  he  was  ex 
cluded  from  the  garden  of  Eden,  "  lest  he  put  forth  his  hand 
and  take  of  the  tree  of  life,  and  eat,  and  live  for  ever,"  Gen.  3, 
22.  Some  change,  therefore,  Avas  to  take  place  in  his  body,  to 
adapt  it  to  live  for  ever.  He  was  made  a  living  soul,  i/o^i/ 
£ujo-tti/.  He  had  a  i/^X7??  an(i  therefore  a  body  adapted  to  it. 
Both  the  Greek  word  i/^xrj  and  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
term  are  frequently  used  for  the  immortal  principle  of  our 
nature — the  rational  soul — but  they  also,  and  perhaps  most 
frequently,  mean  life  in  that  form  which  AVC  have  in  common 
with  other  animals.  This  idea  is  included  in  the  passage 
quoted  from  Genesis.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  quota 
tions  given  in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old  Testament 
are  not  mere  quotations,  but  authoritative  expositions.  PauJ 
tells  us  what  the  Spirit  of  God  meant,  Avhen  he  called  Adam  a 
living  soul. 

The  last  Adam,  i.  e.  Christ.  This  was  not  an  unusual 
designation  for  the  Messiah  among  the  JCAVS,  though  not  found 


350  I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  45. 

in  Scripture  elsewhere  than  here.  The  appropriateness  of  the 
designation  is  evident.  Christ  is  the  second  great  head  and 
representative  man,  of  whom  Adam  is  declared  to  have  been 
the  type,  Rom.  5,  14.  Was  made  a  quickening  spirit.  Adam 
was  in  his  distinctive  character,  that  is,  as  distinguished  from 
Christ,  an  animal — a  creature  endowed  with  animal  life, 
whereas  Christ  has  life  in  himself,  and  can  give  life  to  as  many 
as  he  will,  John_5,  21.  26.  This  does  not  of  course  mean  that 
Adam  had  nothing  more  than  animal  life.  It  does  not  deny 
that  he  had  a  rational  and  immortal  soul.  Neither  does  it  im 
ply  that  our  Lord  had  not,  while  on  earth,  a  i/o^r?  or  principle 
of  life  in  common  with  us.  The  apostle  simply  contrasts  the 
first  and  second  Adam  as  to  their  distinguishing  characteris 
tics.  The  one  was  a  man ;  the  other  infinitely  more. 

There  are  two  questions  suggested  by  this  passage.  The 
first  is,  on  what  ground  does  the  apostle  assert  that  Christ  was 
made  a  quickening  spirit  ?  When  he  says,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  verse,  "  So  it  is  written,"  does  he  intend  to  appeal  to 
the  support  of  Scripture  not  only  for  what  he  says  of  the 
nature  of  Adam,  but  also  for  what  he  says  of  the  person  of 
Christ  ?  If  so,  the  proof  cannot  rest  on  the  passage  quoted, 
for  that  relates  exclusively  to  Adam.  If  the  apostle  intended 
to  cite  the  Scriptures  for  both  parts  of  the  declaration  in  the 
preceding  verse,  "  there  is  a  natural  body,  and  there  is  a  spir 
itual  body,"  he  must  mean  the  Scriptures  in  express  terms 
declare  Adam  to  have  had  a  living  soul,  and  they  set  forth 
Christ  as  a  life-giving  Spirit.  It  is  more  commonly  assumed, 
however,  that  the  quotation  is  limited  to  the  first  clause. 
4  The  Scriptures  say  that  the  first  Adam  "  was  made  a  living 
soul ; "  the  last  Adam  (we  know)  was  made  a  life-giving  Spirit.' 

The  second  question  is,  When  was  Christ  made  a  quicken 
ing  spirit  ?  ^  The  apostle  does  not  refer  to  what  Christ  was 
before  his  incarnation,  but  to  what  he  became.  The  subject 
of  discourse  is,  the  last  Adam.  When  did  he  become  a  quick 
ening  spirit  ?  Some  say  at  his  incarnation.  This  is  undoubt 
edly  true.  As  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  he  was  life-giving. 
"  It  pleased  the  Father  that  he  should  have  life  in  himself," 
John  5,  26.  That  is,  that  the  divine  and  human  nature  should 
be  imited  in  his  person.  And  in  this  constitution  of  his  per 
son  it  was  already  determined  that,  although  while  on  earth 
he  should  have  a  body  like  our  own,  yet  his  whole  person,  in 
cluding  '  his  true  body  and  reasonable  soul,'  should  be  adapted 
to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Adam  was  first  formed  for 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  45.46.47.  351 

this  earth,  and  had  an  earthly  body  ;  the  person  of  Christ  was 
constituted  in  reference  to  his  reigning  in  heaven,  and  there 
fore  he  has  a  spiritual  body.  The  apostle  argues  from  the  na 
ture  of  Adam  to  the  nature  of  his  body;  and  from  the  nature 
of  Christ  to  the  nature  of  his  body.  This  argument  does  not 
involve  the  assumption  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  here  a 
spiritual  one — for  we  know  that  it  was  flesh  and  blood  ;  but 
that  such  was  the  state  to  which,  from  the  very  constitution 
of  his  person,  he  was  destined,  a  spiritual  body  alone  could  be 
suited  to  him.  The  list  Adam,  therefore,  was  made  a  quick 
ening  spirit,  by  the  union  of  the  divine  with  the  human  in  the 
constitution  of  his  person.  Others  say  that  it  was  at  his  resur 
rection  ;  and  otforo,  at  his  ascension.  As  to  the  former  opin 
ion,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  no  change  took  place  at  his  re 
surrection  in  the  nature  of  Christ's  body.  It  was  necessary  in 
order  to  its  satisfactory  identification  that  it  should  remain 
the  same  that  it  was  before.  He  therefore  not  only  called 
upon  his  disciples  to  handle  his  risen  body  and  to  satisfy  them 
selves  o*'  its  identity  by  probing  the  wounds  in  his  hands  and 
feet,  bat  he  also  repeatedly  ate  before  them.  He  did  not  as 
sume  ms  permanent  pneumatic  state  until  his  ascension.  But 
this  J;!  not  make  him  a  quickening  spirit.  It  only  affected 
his  iody,  which  then  assumed  the  state  adapted  to  its  condi- 
tn>F  in  heaven. 

46.  Howbeit  that  (was)  not  first  which  is  spiritual, 
bu'..  that  which  is  natural ;  and  afterward  that  which  is 
spiritual 

This  does  not  mean  simply  that  the  natural  body  precedes 
the  spiritual  body.  But  it  announces,  as  it  were,  a  general 
Aaw.  The  lower  precedes  the  higher  ;  the  imperfect  the  per- 
<ect.  This  is  true  in  all  the  works  of  God,  in  which  there  is  a 
development.  Adam's  earthly  state  was  to  be  preparatory  to 
A  heavenly  one.  The  present  life  is  like  a  seed  time,  the  har 
dest  is  hereafter.  The  natural  comes  before  the  spiritual ;  as 
Caivin  says,  we  are  born  before  we  are  regenerated,  we  live 
oefore  we  rise. 

47.  The  first  man  (is)  of  the  earth,  earthy :  the 
second  man  (is)  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

The  general  principle  stated  in  the  preceding  verse,  that 


352  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  47.48.49. 

the  natural  precedes  the  spiritual,  is  here  illustrated  by  the 
fact  that  Adam  came  before  Christ.  The  first  man  was  of  the 
earth,  i.  e.  formed  out  of  the  earth,  and  therefore  earthy.  The 
second  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven.  Here  the  text  is  doubt 
ful.  The  authorities  are  about  equally  divided  for  and  against 
the  reading  6  KV/OIOS,  the  Lord.  The  sentence  is  more  simple 
if  that  word  be  omitted.  4  The  first  man  was  from  the  earth ; 
the  second  man  was  from  heaven.'  If  the  common  text  be 
retained,  the  word  Lord  is  in  apposition  with  the  words  the 
second  man.  '  The  second  man,  the  Lord,  was  from  heaven.' 
This  passage  was  used  by  the  early  heretics  of  the  Gnostic 
school  to  sustain  their  doctrine  that  our  Lord  was  not  really 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  was  clothed  in  a  body  derived 
from  heaven,  in  opposition  to  whom  the  early  creeds  declare 
that  he  was  as  to  his  human  nature  consubstantial  with  man, 
and  as  to  his  divine  nature  consubstantial  with  God.  The 
text,  however,  simply  asserts  the  heavenly  origin  of  Christ. 
Adam  was  of  the  earth ;  Christ  was  from  heaven ;  comp.  John 
3,  13.  Adam,  therefore,  had  a  body  suited  to  the  earth ; 
Christ  has  a  body  suited  to  heaven. 

48.  As  (is)  the  earthy,  such  (are)  they  also  that  are 
earthy ;  and  as  (is)  the  heavenly,  such  (are)  they  also 
that  are  heavenly. 

The  earthy  is  of  course  Adam ;  they  that  are  earthy  are 
his  descendants.  The  heavenly  is  Christ ;  they  that  are  heav 
enly  are  his  risen  people.  The  descendants  of  Adam  derive 
from  him  an  earthly  body  like  his.  Those  who  are  Christ's 
are  to  have  a  body  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body, 
Phil.  3,  21. 

49.  And  as  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthy, 
we  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly. 

In  this  passage,  instead  of  the  future  ^opecro/xev,  we  shall 
hear,  the  great  majority  of  the  oldest  MSS.  read  the  conjunc 
tive  (£opeo-(o/x€i>,  let  us  bear.  The  context,  however,  so  evidently 
demands  the  future,  that  the  common  reading  is  preferred  by 
almost  all  editors.  An  exhortation  here  would  be  entirely  out 
of  place.  The  apostle  is  evidently  proceeding  with  his  discus 
sion.  He  is  obviating  the  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  founded  on  the  assumption  that  our  bodies  here- 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  49.50.  353 

after  arc  to  be  of  the  same  kind  as  those  which  we  have  here. 
This  is  not  so.  They  are  to  be  like  the  body  of  Christ.  As 
we  have  borne  the  image  of  Adam  as  to  his  body,  we  shall 
bear  the  image  of  Christ  as  to  his  body.  The  idea  that  as  we 
have  derived  a  corrupt  nature  from  Adam,  we  derive  a  holy 
nature  from  Christ,  though  true  in  itself,  is  altogether  foreign 
to  the  connection. 

50.  Now  this  I  say,  brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood 
cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God ;  neither  doth  cor 
ruption  inherit  incormption. 

This  I  say.  These  words  admit  of  three  interpretations. 
1.  They  maybe  understood  concessively.  '  This  I  concede, 
brethren.  I  admit  that  flesh  and  blood,  our  bodies  as  now 
organized,  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  that  is 
not  what  I  teach  when  I  preach  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec 
tion.  Our  bodies  are  to  be  changed.'  2.  The  sense  may  be, 
4  This  is  what  I  say,  the  sum  of  what  I  have  said  is  that  flesh 
and  blood,'  &G.  3.  The  words  may  mean,  'This  I  assert, 
brethren.  I  assure  you  of  this  fact,  that  flesh  and  blood,'  &c. 
In  7,  29  the  expression  is  used  in  this  sense.  Comp.  also  Rom. 

3,  8  and  1  Cor.  10,  19. 

Flesh  and  blood  means  our  body  as  now  constituted,  not 
sinful  human  nature.  The  phrase  never  has  this  latter  sense. 
In  Heb.  2,  14,  it  is  said,  "Inasmuch  as  the  children  are  par 
takers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  (Christ)  also  himself  likewise  took 
part  of  the  same,"  Matt.  16,  17.  Gal.  1,  16.  Eph.  6,  12.  It  is 
indeed  true,  that  our  unsanctified  nature,  or  unrenewed  man, 
cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  that  is  not  what  the 
apostle  is  speaking  about.  He  is  speaking  of  the  body  and  of 
its  state  after  the  resurrection.  It  is  of  the  body  as  now  con 
stituted  that  he  says,  it  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
i.  e.  the  kingdom  of  Christ  as  it  is  to  exist  after  the  resurrec 
tion,  Matt,  8,  11.  Luke  13,  28.  1  Cor.  6,  9.  Gal.  5,  21.  2  Tim. 

4,  18.     The  same  idea  is  repeated  in  abstract  terms  and  as  a 
general  proposition  in  the  next  clause,  neither  can  corruption 
inherit  incormption.     The  mortal  cannot  be  immortal ;  the 
perishable   imperishable.     Incormption   cannot   be   an   attri 
bute  of  corruption.     Our  bodies,  therefore,  if  they  are  to  be 
Immortal  and  imperishable  must  be  changed.     And  this  the 
apostle  in  the  next  verse  announces  on  the  authority  of  a  direct 
revelation,  is  actually  to  occur. 


354  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  51. 

51.  Behold,  I  shew  you  a  mystery;  We  shall  not 
all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed, 

A  mystery  ;  something  revealed,  and  which  could  not 
otherwise  be  known,  Matt.  13,  11.  1  Cor.  4,  1,  and  often  else 
where.  What  is  here  expressed  by  saying,  I  show  you  a 
mystery,  is  in  1  Thess.  4,  15  expressed  by  saying,  'This  I  say 
unto  you  by  the  word  of  the  LordJ  i.  e.  by  divine  revelation. 
The  revelation  which  Paul  now  declares,  and  to  which  he  calls 
special  attention  by  the  word,  Behold !  is,  that  all  are  not  to 
die,  but  all  are  to  be  changed,  i.  e.  so  changed  that  their  cor 
ruptible  body  shall  be  rendered  incorruptible.  The  common 
text  is,  Travres  ^kv  ov  Kot/xTy^^cro/xe^a,  the  negative  being  con 
nected  with  the  verb,  so  that  the  literal  sense  would  be,  all 
are  not  to  die.  This  is  said  of  all  whom  Paul  addressed.  The 
apostle  tells  them  all  that  they  are  not  to  die.  To  avoid  this 
impossible  sense,  for  Paul  certainly  did  not  mean  to  assure  the 
Corinthians  that  it  had  been  revealed  to  him  that  none  of  them 
should  die,  most  of  the  older  commentators  assume  in  com 
mon  with  our  translators  a  not  unusual  trajection  of  the  nega 
tive  particle,  Tran-es  ou  standing  for  ov  7ran-es.  Others  explain 
the  verse  thus :  '  We  all  —  shall  indeed  not  die  (before  the 
resurrection)  —  but  we  shall  all  be  changed.'  It  is  said  this 
is  contrary  to  the  context,  inasmuch  as  being  changed  is  some 
thing  peculiar  to  those  who  should  be  alive  at  the  coming  of 
Christ,  and  is  not  affirmed  of  the  dead.  This,  however,  is  con 
trary  to  the  fact.  Paul  had  said,  v.  50,  that  flesh  and  blood 
could  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  All,  therefore,  who 
enter  that  kingdom,  whether  they  die  before  the  second  ad 
vent  or  survive  the  coming  of  Christ,  must  be  changed.  And 
that  is  the  fact  which  Paul  says  had  been  revealed  to  him. 
Those  who  died  before  the  advent  would  not  fail  of  the  bless 
ings  of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  those  who  should  be  alive  when 
he  came,  would  not  be  left  in  their  corruptible  bodies.  Both 
should  be  changed,  and  thus  prepared  for  the  heavenly  state.* 

*  The  difficulty,  however,  attending  the  common  text,  has  given  rise  to  a 
great  variety  of  readings  in  the  MSS.  and  versions.  A.  C.  F.  G.  have  irai'rey 
Hfv  Koi/uTj&Tjo-o^e&u,  ov  Trdi'Tfs  Sf  aXha-yf)  (To  [*€&<!,  we  shall  indeed  all  die,  but 
we  shall  not  all  be  changed.  D.  and  the  Vulgate  have  :  irdvres  jj.fv  avaffrrjcro- 
Mf&a,  ou  TrdvTe?  8e  aAAcryTjcroVe&a,  we  shall  all  rise,  but  we  shall  not  all  be  changed. 
There  are  several  fcss  important  variations.  These  are  all  explained  as  at 
tempts  on  the  part  of  transcribers  to  escape  making  the  apostle  say  that  the 
Christians  of  that  generation  were  not  to  die.  But  as  the  common  text  does 
riot  make  him  say  that,  there  is  no  necessity  for  departing  from  it. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  51.  355 

Oomp.  1  Thess.  4,  15-17.  The  modern  commentators,  both 
German  and  English,  understand  the  apostle  as  expressing  the 
confident  expectation  that  he  and  others  of  that  generation 
should  survive  the  coming  of  Christ.  '  Though  we  (who  are 
now  alive)  shall  not  all  die,  we  shall  all  be  changed.'  But 
1.  This  is  altogether  unnecessary.  The  we  all  includes  all  be 
lievers  who  had  lived,  were  living,  or  ever  should  live.  There 
is  nothing  either  in  the  form  of  expression  or  in  the  context  to 
limit  it  to  the  men  of  that  generation.  In  the  same  way  Paul 
says  in  1  Thess.  4,  15,  "  We  that  are  alive  at  the  coming  of 
the  Lord  shall  not  prevent  them  that  are  asleep."  This  does 
not  imply  that  he  expected  to  be  alive  when  Christ  came.  In 
his  second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  he  warns  them  against 
the  expectation  of  the  speedy  advent  of  Christ,  telling  them 
that  a  great  apostasy  and  the  revelation  of  the  Man  of  Sin 
were  to  occur  before  that  event.  2.  The  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  sacred  writers  rendered  them  infallible  in  all  they 
taught ;  but  it  did  not  render  them  omniscient.  They  could 
not  err  in  what  they  communicated,  but  they  might  err,  and 
doubtless  did  err,  as  to  things  not  included  in  the  communica 
tions  of  the  Spirit.  The  time  of  the  second  advent  was  not 
revealed  to  them.  They  profess  their  ignorance  on  that  point. 
They  were,  therefore,  as  to  that  matter,  on  a  level  with  other 
men,  and  may  have  differed  in  regard  to  their  private  conjec 
tures  on  the  subject  just  as  others  differ.  It  would  not,  in  the 
least,  therefore,  encroach  on  their  authority  as  infallible  teach 
ers,  if  it  should  be  apparent  that  they  cherished  erroneous 
expectations  with  regard  to  that  about  which  they  professed 
to  know  nothing.  Knowing  that  Christ  was  to  come,  and  not 
knowing  when  he  was  to  come,  it  was  perfectly  natural  that 
they  should  look  on  his  advent  as  constantly  imminent,  until  it 
was  revealed  that  certain  events  not  yet  accomplished,  were 
to  occur  before  Christ  came.  But  all  this  is  very  different 
from  any  didactic  statement  that  he  was  to  come  within  a  cer 
tain  period.  Paul  might  exhort  Christians  to  wait  and  long 
for  the  coming  of  the  Lord  ;  but  he  could  not  tell  them  by  the 
word  of  the  Lord  that  he  and  others  then  living  would  be  alive 
when  he  came.  This  would  not  only  be  teaching  error,  but  it 
would  be  claiming  divine  authority,  or  a  special  revelation,  for 
that  error.  It  is,  therefore,  only  at  the  expense  of  all  confi 
dence  in  the  inspiration  of  the  apostle  that  the  exposition  above 
mentioned  can  be  adopted. 


356  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  52. 

52.  In  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the 
last  trump  :  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead 
shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed. 

The  change  in  question  is  to  be  instantaneous ;  in  a  mo 
ment,  literally,  an  atom,  i.  e.  in  a  portion  of  time  so  short  as 
to  be  incapable  of  further  division.  It  is  to  take  place  at  the 
last  trump,  i.  e.  on  the  last  day.  As  the  trumpet  was  used  for 
assembling  the  people  or  marshalling  a  host,  it  became  the 
symbol  for  expressing  the  idea  of  the  gathering  of  a  multitude. 
So,  in  Matt.  24,  31,  Christ  says,  "He  will  send  his  angels  with 
a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet ;  and  they  shall  gather  his  elect 
from  the  four  winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  another." 
Comp.  Is.  27, 13.  1  Thess.  4, 16.  This  trumpet  is  called  the 
last,  not  because  several  trumpets  (the  Jews  say  seven)  are  to 
sound  in  succession,  but  because  it  is  the  last  that  ever  is  to 
sound.  In  other  words,  the  resurrection  is  to  take  place  on 
the  last  day.  For  the  trumpet  shall  sound.  This  is  a  con 
firmation  of  the  preceding.  That  day  shall  surely  come— the 
voice  of  the  archangel,  the  trump  of  God,  shall  certainly  re 
sound  as  it  did  from  Sinai,  Ex.  19,  16.  And,  i.  e.  and  then,  in 
consequence  of  the  summons  of  God,  the  dead  shall  be  raised 
in  the  manner  described  in  vs.  42.  43,  incorruptible,  glorious 
and  powerful.  And  we  shall  be  changed.  This  is  in  exact 
accordance  with  1  Thess.  4,  15.  Those  who  are  alive  when 
Christ  comes  "shall  not  prevent  them  which  are  asleep." 
The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first,  and  then  the  living  shall 
undergo  their  instantaneous  change.  As  remarked  on  the 
preceding  verse,  it  is  not  necessary  to  understand  the  apostle 
as  including  himself  and  fellow  believers  in  Corinth,  when  he 
says  We  shall  be  changed.  The  connection  indeed  is  different 
here  from  what  it  is  there.  There  he  says,  "  We  shall  not  all 
die."  If  that  means  that  the  men  of  that  generation  should 
not  all  die,  it  is  a  positive  assertion  of  what  the  event  has 
proved  to  be  false.  But  here  he  simply  says,  all  who  are  alive 
when  Christ  comes  shall  be  changed.  If  he  hoped  that  he 
might  be  of  the  number  there  would  be  nothing  in  that  ex 
pectation  inconsistent  with  his  inspiration.  Calvin,  therefore, 
so  understands  the  passage.*  Considering,  however,  his  ex- 

*  Quum  autem  dicit,  Nos  immutabimur  in  eorum  numero  se  comprelieudit 
qui  victuri  sunt  ad  Christ!  adventum  ;  quoniam  jam  erant  postrema  tempora, 
expectiindus  fuit  dies  ille  in  singulas  horas. 


I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  52.  53.  54.  55.         357 

press  teaching  in  2  Thess.  2,  2-12  on  the  subject,  it  is  far  more 
natural  to  understand  him  as  contemplating  the  vast  company 
of  believers  as  a  whole,  and  saying  '  Those  of  us  who  arc  dead 
shall  rise,  and  all  who  are  alive  shall  be  changed.' 

53.  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption, 
and  this  mortal  (must)  put  on  immortality. 

This  is  the  reason  why  we  must  be  changed.  l  We  must 
all  be  changed,  for  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption.' 
It  is  impossible  that  corruption  should  inherit  incorruption. 
This  reason  applies  equally  to  the  quick  and  to  the  dead. 
With  regard  to  both  classes  it  is  true  that  these  vile  bodies 
must  be  fashioned  like  unto  Christ's  glorious  body. 

54.  So  when  this  corruptible  shall  have  put  on  in 
corruption,  and  this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immor 
tality,  then  shall  be  brought  to  pass  the  saying  that  is 
written,  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory. 

When  the  change  above  described  has  been  accomplished, 
when  once  the  resurrection  has  taken  place,  then,  according 
to  the  language  of  Scripture,  death  shall  be  completely  con 
quered.  Not  only  shall  those  over  whom  he  had  triumphed, 
and  whom  he  had  so  long  detained  in  the  prison  of  the  grave, 
be  delivered  from  his  power,  but  there  shall  be  no  more  death. 
The^ passage  quoted  is  Isaiah  25,  8,  "He  will  swallow  up  death 
in  victory."  In  Hebrew  the  last  words  mean  literally  for 
ever.  They  are,  however,  frequently  translated  by  the  LXX. 
as  they  are  here  rendered  by  the  apostle.  The  sense  is  the 
same.  The  victory  over  death  is  to  be  complete  and  final. 

55.  O   death,  where  (is)  thy  sting?      O  grave, 
where  (is)  thy  victory  ? 

The  apostle  places  himself  and  his  readers  in  presence  of 
the  Saviour  and  of  the  risen  dead  arrayed  in  immortality; 
and  in  view  of  that  majestic  scene  he  breaks  out  in  these 
words  of  triumph  :  '  Christ  has  conquered.  His  people  are 
redeemed.  Death  is  disarmed.  Hades  is  no  more.'  Death  is 
addressed  under  the  figure  of  an  animal  armed  with  a  poison 
ous  sting  which  pierces  even  to  the  soul ;  for  that  sting  is  sin. 
The  grave,  or  the  Greek  word  Hades,  means,  what  is  un- 


358  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  55.56. 

seen,  the  invisible  world,  the  abode  of  the  dead  in  the  widest 
Bense.  It  depends  on  the  context  whether  the  immediate 
reference  be  to  the  grave,  the  place  of  departed  spirits,  or 
hell,  in  the  modern  sense  of  that  word.  Here  where  the  spe 
cial  reference  is  to  the  bodies  of  men  and  to  the  delivery  of 
them  from  the  power  of  death,  it  is  properly  rendered  the 
grave.  The  only  sense  in  which  the  body  can  be  in  Hades  is 
that  it  is  in  the  grave.  The  apostle  is  not  speaking  of  the  de 
livery  of  the  souls  of  men  from  any  intermediate  state,  but  of 
the  redemption  of  the  body.  In  Hosea  13, 14  God  says,  "  O 
death,  I  will  be  thy  plagues ;  O  grave,  I  will  be  thy  destruc 
tion."  This  is  a  literal  version  of  the  Hebrew.  The  Vulgate 
comes  near  to  it,  Ero  mors  tua,  O  mors !  Morsus  tuus  ero, 
inferne !  The  LXX.  depart  from  the  figure,  "  Where  is  thy 
judgment  (or  vengeance),  O  death?  where  is  thy  sting,  O 
grave  ?  "  These  are  all  different  forms  of  expressing  the  idea 
that  death  and  the  grave  are  completely  conquered.  The 
apostle  does  not  quote  the  prophet.  He  expresses  an  analo 
gous  idea  in  analogous  terms.  In  speaking  of  death  as  fur 
nished  with  a  sting,  the  most  natural  figure  is  that  of  a  scor 
pion.  Others  say  that  mivrpov  here  means  a  goad,  and  that 
death  is  compared  to  a  man  driving  animals  before  him  with 
such  an  instrument.  The  power  of  a  goad  is  as  nothing  to 
that  of  the  sting  of  a  scorpion,  Rev.  9,  5.  6. 10,  and  the  figure 
is  therefore  far  more  forcible  as  commonly  understood.* 

56.  The  sting  of  death  (is)  sin ;  and  the  strength 
of  sin  (is)  the  law. 

The  sting  of  death  is  sin  /  that  is,  death  would  have  no 
power  to  injure  us  if  it  were  not  for  sin.  This  is  true  for  two 
reasons.  1.  Because  if  there  were  no  sin  there  would  be  no 
death.  Death  is  by  sin,  Rom.  5,  12.  2.  Because  sin  gives 
death,  when  it  has  been  introduced,  all  its  terrors.  If  sin  be 
pardoned,  death  is  harmless.  It  can  inflict  no  evil.  It  be 
comes  a  mere  transition  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  state.  The 
strength  of  sin  is  the  law.  This  must  be  the  law  of  God  in  its 
widest  sense ;  not  the  Mosaic  law,  which  would  make  the 
declaration  amount  to  nothing.  The  law  is  the  strength  of  I 

*  The  MSS.  B.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  and  most  of  the  versions,  read,  TTOU  auv,  &aj/a- 
Tf,  T(>  '{fVTpov ;  TTOV  ffov,  frdvaTf)  rb  V"IKOS  i  where,  0  dfath,  is  thy  sf/ny  ?  wheret 
0  death,  thy  victory  ?  A  reading  which  Tischcndorf  and  other  modern  editors 
have  adopted. 


I.   CORINTHIANS   15,  56.57.  359 

sin  for  two  reasons.  1.  Because  without  law  there  would  bo 
110  sin,  Rom.  4,  15.  The  very  idea  of  sin  ?s  want  of  conformity 
on  the  part  of  moral  creatures  to  the  law  of  God.  If  there  be 
no  standard  to  which  we  are  bound  to  be  conformed,  there 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  want  of  conformity.  Sin  is  the  cor 
relative,  not  of  reason,  nor  of  expediency,  but  of  law.  If  you 
take  away  law,  men  may  act  unreasonably,  or  in  a  way  injuri 
ous  to  themselves  or  others,  but  they  cannot  sin.  2.  Because 
if  there  be  no  law  there  can  be  no  condemnation.  Sin  is  not 
imputed  where  there  is  no  law,  Rom.  5,  13.  There  is  still 
another  reason,  which,  though  presented  elsewhere  by  the 
apostle,  is  foreign  to  this  connection,  and  that  is,  that  the  law 
not  only  reveals  and  condemns  sin,  but  it  exasperates  and  ex 
cites  it,  and  thus  gives  it  strength,  Rom.  7,  8-12. 

57.  But  thanks  (be)  to  God,  which  giveth  us  the 
victory  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  victory  here  meant  is,  of  course,  the  victory  over 
death  and  the  grave.  Thanks  be  to  God,  who  delivers  us 
from  the  power  of  death,  redeeming  even  our  bodies  from  the 
grave,  and  making  us  partakers  of  everlasting  life.  This  is 
done  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  i.  e.  our  divine  possessor 
and  absolute  ruler.  It  is  through  him,  and  through  him  alone. 
1 .  Because  he  has  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  law.  It  has  no 
power  to  condemn  those  who  are  clothed  in  his  righteousness. 
There  is  no  condemnation  to  those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus, 
Rom.  8,  1.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's 
elect  ?  It  is  God  that  justifieth,  who  is  he  that  condemneth  ? 
Rom.  8,  33.  34.  Christ  by  his  death  hath  destroyed  him  that 
had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil,  and  delivered  them 
who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to 
bondage,  Heb.  2,  14.  15.  That  is,  in  virtue  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  by  which  the  demands  of  justice  are  satisfied,  Satan, 
the  great  executioner  of  divine  justice,  has  no  longer  the  right 
or  power  to  detain  the  people  of  Christ  under  the  power  of 
death.  If,  therefore,  it  be  tJie  law  which  gives  sin  its  reality 
and  strength,  and  if  sin  gives  death  its  sting,  he  who  satisfies 
the  law  destroys  the  strength  of  sin,  and  consequently  the 
sting  of  death.  It  is  thus  that  Christ  deprives  death  of  all 
power  to  injure  his  people.  It  is  for  them  disarmed  and  ren 
dered  as  harmless  as  an  infant.  2.  But  Christ  not  only  gives 
us  this  victory  through  his  justifying  righteousness,  but  by  his 


360  I.  CORINTHIANS  15,  57.58. 

almighty  power,  he  new  creates  the  soul  after  the  image  of 
God,  and,  what  is  here  principally  intended,  he  repairs  all  the 
evils  which  death  had  inflicted.  He  restores  us  to  that  state, 
and  even  to  more  than  that  state,  from  which  sin  had  cast  us 
down.  He  rescues  our  bodies  from  the  grave,  and  fashions 
them  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  even  by  that  power  whereby 
he  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself,  Phil.  3,  21.  Had 
it  not  been  for  Christ,  death  would  have  reigned  for  ever  over 
our  fallen  race ;  but  thanks  be  to  God,  Christ  hath  given  us 
the  victory ;  so  that  the  believer  may  even  now  say,  O  death, 
where  is  thy  sting  ?  O  grave,  where  is  thy  victory  ? 

58.  Therefore,  my  beloved  brethren,  be  ye  stead 
fast,  unmoveable,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the 
Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  your  labour  is  not  in 
vain  in  the  Lord. 

Such  being  the  truth  and  importance  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection,  Christians  should  be  firm  in  their  adherence 
to  it,  not  suffering  themselves  to  be  moved  by  the  specious 
objections  of  philosophy  falsely  so  called.  They  should  re 
member  that  if  the  dead  rise  not,  then  is  Christ  not  risen ; 
and  if  Christ  be  not  risen,  their  faith  is  vain,  and  they  are  yet 
in  the  power  of  sin.  But  as  Christ  has  risen,  and  as  his  resur 
rection  illustrates  and  renders  certain  that  of  his  people,  what 
more  natural  and  proper  than  that  they  should  abound  in  the 
work  of  the  Lord.  The  work  of  the  Lord  is  either  that  work 
in  which  the  Lord  is  engaged,  the  destruction  of  death  by  de 
stroying  sin ;  or,  it  is  the  work  which  the  Lord  has  given  us 
to  do,  as  parents  and  children,  as  husbands  and  wives,  as  min 
isters  and  Christians.  In  this  work  we  should  abound,  i.  e. 
be  abundant.  As  Paul  says,  2  Cor.  11,  23,  "In  labours  more 
abundant."  Forasmuch  as  ye  knoio  that  your  labour  is  not 
in  vain  in  the  Lord.  This  with  Paul  was  more  than  faith ;  it 
was  knowledge.  He  knew  that  labour  in  the  work  of  the 
Lord  would  not  be  in  vain.  The  reward  secured  for  it  by  the 
grace  of  God  and  merit  of  Christ  is  participation  of  the  glories 
of  a  blessed  resurrection. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  16.  3d 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Treats,  1.  Of  the  collection  to  be  made  for  the  saints  in  Jerusalem,  vs.  1-9. 
2.  Of  Timothy  and  Apollos,  whom  the  apostle  commends  to  the  confidence 
of  the  Corinthians,  vs.  10-14-.  3.  The  third  paragraph  contains  exhorta 
tions  and  greetings,  vs.  15-20.  4.  The  last  paragraph  is  the  salutation 
written  with  Paul's  own  hand,  vs.  21-24. 

Concerning  the  Collection  for  the  Saints  at  Jerusalem. 

FOR  some  reason  not  now  to  be  certainly  ascertained,  poverty 
prevailed  in  Jerusalem  among  the  believers  more  than  in  any 
other  part  of  the  church.  Almost  all  the  special  exhortations 
to  provide  for  the  poor,  in  Paul's  epistles,  have  primary  refer 
ence  to  the  poor  in  Jerusalem.  He  had  exhorted  the  churches 
of  Galatia  to  make  a  collection  for  their  relief;  and  then  those 
of  Macedonia,  and  he  now  addresses  the  Corinthians  on  the 
subject.  It  is  a  very  common  opinion  that  the  poverty  of  the 
Christians  in  Jerusalem  arose  from  the  community  of  goods 
introduced  among  them  at  the  beginning;  an  error  which 
arose  from  an  excess  of  love  over  knowledge.  In  thirty  years 
that  mistake  may  have  produced  its  legitimate  effects.  Per 
fection  in  one  thing  requires  perfection  in  all.  Perfect  equality 
in  goods  requires  perfect  freedom  from  selfishness  and  indo 
lence.  The  collection  made  by  the  Syrian  churches,  as  record 
ed  in  Acts  11,  29,  was  in  consequence  of  the  dearth  the  Chris 
tian  prophet  Agabus  warned  his  brethren  was  to  come  on  all 
the  world.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  cause,  the  fact  is 
certain  that  the  saints  in  Jerusalem  stood  in  special  need  of 
the  assistance  of  their  richer  brethren.  Paul,  therefore,  un 
dervalued  and  suspected  as  he  was  by  the  Jewish  Christians, 
laboured  assiduously  in  their  behalf.  He  exhorts  the  Corinthi 
ans  to  adopt  the  same  arrangements  in  reference  to  this  matter, 
which  he  had  established  in  the  churches  of  Galatia.  A  con 
tribution  was  to  be  made  on  the  Lord's  day  every  week,  pro 
portioned  to  their  resources,  so  that  the  collection  might  be 
ready  when  he  came,  vs.  1.  2.  He  would  either  send  it  by 
persons  whom  they  might  approve  to  Jerusalem,  or  if  the  sum 
were  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  make  it  worth  while,  he  would 
himself  accompany  their  messengers,  vs.  3.  4.  He  announces 
his  purpose  to  visit  the  Corinthians  after  having  passed  over 
Macedonia,  and  perhaps  to  pass  the  winter  with  them.  His 
1C 


362  I.  CORINTHIANS    16,  1.2. 

prospects  of  usefulness  in  Ephesus  would  detain  him  in  that 
city  until  Pentecost,  vs.  5-9. 

As  to  Timothy  and  Apollos  he  exhorts  them  to  treat  the 
former  in  such  a  manner  that  he  might  be  free  from  fear 
among  them,  for  he  was  worthy  of  their  confidence,  vs.  10.  11. 
Of  the  latter  he  says  he  had  urged  him  to  go  to  Corinth  with 
the  other  brethren,  but  that  he  was  unwilling  to  do  so  then, 
but  would  go  when  a  suitable  occasion  offered,  vs.  12-14.  He 
exhorts  them  to  submission  to  the  household  of  Stephanas, 
and  to  every  one  who  was  labouring  in  the  good  cause,  vs.  15. 
16.  He  expresses  his  gratification  in  seeing  the  brethren  from 
Corinth,  and  sends  salutations  from  those  around  him  to  the 
Christians  in  Achaia,  vs.  17-20.  The  conclusion  of  the  epistle 
was  written  with  his  own  hand  as  an  authentification  of  the 
whole,  vs.  21-24. 

1.  Now  concerning  the  collection  for  the  saints,  as 
I  have  given  order  to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  even  so 
do  ye. 

JBut  concerning  the  collection  which  is  for  the  saints. 
What  saints  were  intended  was  already  known  to  the  Corin 
thians.  Instead  of  for  the  saints,  in  Rom.  15,  26  we  have 
the  more  definite  expression,  "  for  the  poor  of  the  saints  who 
are  in  Jerusalem,"  in  whose  behalf,  he  tells  the  Romans,  Mace 
donia  and  Achaia  had  made  a  contribution.  The  Greek  word 
Aoyia,  in  the  sense  of  cnAAoyrJ,  collection,  is  only  found  in  this 
passage.  As  I  have  given  orders,  i.  e.  as  I  arranged  or  or 
dered.  This  is  the  language  of  authority.  For  although 
these  contributions  were  voluntary,  and  were  required  to  be 
made  cheerfully,  2  Cor.  9,  7,  yet  they  were  a  duty,  and  there 
fore  both  the  collection  itself,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  should 
be  accomplished,  were  proper  subjects  for  apostolic  direction. 
In  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  there  is  no  mention  of  this  col 
lection.  It  was  probably  ordered  when  Paul  visited  those 
churches.  So  do  ye,  i,  e.  adopt  the  same  plan  as  to  the  mode 
of  making  the  collection.  What  that  was,  is  stated  in  the 
following  verse. 

2.  Upon  the  first  (day)  of  the  week  let  every  one 
of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as  (God)  hath  prospered 
him,  that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I  come. 


I.  CORINTHIANS  16,  2.  363 

The  collection  was  to  be  made  every  Lord's  day ;  every 
one  was  to  contribute ;  and  the  contributions  were  to  be  in 
proportion  to  the  means  of  the  giver.  These  are  the  three 
principles  which  the  apostle  had  established  among  the 
churches  of  Galatia,  and  which  he  urged  the  Corinthians  to 
adopt.  Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  literally,  upon  one  of 
the  /Sabbath,  according  to  the  Jewish  method  of  designating 
the  days  of  the  week.  The  Hebrew  word,  sabbath  (rest),  is 
used  not  only  in  the  singular,  but  also  in  the  plural  form,  both 
for  the  seventh  day,  and  for  the  whole  week,  Luke  18,  12. 
That  the  first  day  of  the  week  was,  by  divine  appointment, 
made  the  sacred  day  for  Christians,  may  be  inferred,  1.  From 
the  distinction  put  upon  that  day  by  our  Lord  himself,  John 
20,  19.  26.  2.  From  the  greatness  of  the  event  which  its  ob 
servance  was  intended  to  commemorate.  The  sanctification 
of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  was  intended  to  keep  in  mind 
the  great  truth  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  on  which  the 
whole  system  of  revealed  religion  was  founded ;  and  as  Chris 
tianity  is  founded  on  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  day  on 
which  Christ  rose  became  for  that  reason  the  Christian  Sab 
bath.  3.  From  its  being  called  by  the  apostle  John  the  Lord's 
day,  i.  e.  the  day  set  apart  for  the  service  of  the  Lord,  Rev.  1 , 
10.  4.  From  the  evidence  that  it  was  from  the  beginning  the 
day  on  which  Christians  assembled  for  worship,  Acts  20,  7. 
5.  From  the  uniform  practice  of  the  whole  church,  which 
practice,  having  the  clear  evidence  of  apostolic  sanction,  is 
authoritative. 

Let  every  one  of  you.  It  was  an  important  feature  of  these 
apostolic  arrangements,  that  the  contributions  were  not  to  be 
confined  to  any  one  class  of  the  people.  The  same  amount 
might  perhaps  have  been  raised  from  the  rich  few.  But  this 
would  not  have  answered  one  important  end  which  the  apostle 
had  in  view.  It  was  the  religious  effect  which  these  gifts 
were  to  produce  in  promoting  Christian  fellowship,  in  evincing 
the  truth  and  power  of  the  gospel,  and  in  calling  forth  grati 
tude  and  praise  to  God,  even  more  than  the  relief  of  the  tem 
poral  necessities  of  the  poor,  that  Paul  desired  to  see  accom 
plished,  2  Cor.  9,  12-14.  Every  one  was  to  lay  by  himself, 
i.  e.  most  modern  commentators  say,  at  home,  nap  eaurw.  Com 
pare  Trpos  eavrdj/,  in  Luke  24,  12  ;  see  also  John  20,  10.  The 
direction  then  is  that  every  one  should,  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  lay  aside  at  home  whatever  he  was  able  to  give,  thus 
treasuring  up  his  contribution.  To  this  interpretation  it  may 


364  I.  CORINTHIANS  16,  2.3. 

be  objected  that  the  whole  expression  is  thus  obscure  and 
awkward.  c  Let  every  one  at  home  place,  treasuring  up  what 
he  has  to  give.'  The  words  do  not  mean  to  lay  by  at  home, 
but  to  lay  by  himself.  The  direction  is  nothing  more  definite 
than,  let  him  place  by  himself,  i.  e.  let  him  take  to  himself 
what  he  means  to  give.  What  he  was  to  do  with  it,  or  where 
he  was  to  deposit  it,  is  not  expressed.  The  word  ^rja-avp^v 
means  putting  into  the  treasury,  or  hoarding  up,  and  is  per 
fectly  consistent  with  the  assumption  that  the  place  of  deposit 
was  some  common  treasury,  and  not  every  man's  own  house. 
2.  If  Paul  directed  this  money  to  be  laid  up  at  home,  why 
was  the  first  day  of  the  week  selected  ?  It  is  evident  that  the 
first  day  must  have  offered  some  special  facility  for  doing 
what  is  here  enjoined.  The  only  reason  that  can  be  assigned 
for  requiring  the  thing  to  be  done  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
is,  that  on  that  day  the  Christians  were  accustomed  to  meet, 
and  what  each  one  had  laid  aside  from  his  weekly  gains  could 
be  treasured  up,  i.  e.  put  into  the  common  treasury  of  the 
church.  3.  The  end  which  the  apostle  desired  to  accomplish 
could  not  otherwise  have  been  effected.  He  wished  that  there 
might  be  no  collections  when  he  came.  But  if  every  man  had 
his  money  laid  by  at  home,  the  collection  would  be  still  to  be 
made.  The  probability  is,  therefore,  Paul  intended  to  direct 
the  Corinthians  to  make  a  collection  every  Lord's  day  for  the 
poor,  when  they  met  for  worship.  As  God  hath  prospered 
him  •  literally,  whatever  has  gone  well  with  him.  He  was  to 
lay  aside  what  by  his  success  in  business  he  was  able  to  give. 
This  is  another  principle  which  the  apostle  would  have  Chris 
tians  to  act  upon.  Their  contribution  should  be  in  proportion 
to  their  means. 

3.  And  when  I  come,  whomsoever  ye  shall  approve 
by  (your)  letters,  them  will  I  send  to  bring  your  liber 
ality  unto  Jerusalem. 

Paul  was  not  to  receive  the  money  himself.  It  was  to  be 
given  to  men  selected  and  approved  by  the  Corinthians,  whom 
Paul  promised  to  send,  furnished  with  letters  from  himself,  to 
Jerusalem.  The  words  BL  eTrwrroAwv,  with  letters,  are  not  to  be 
connected  with  what  precedes,  "  approved  by  your  letters," 
but  with  what  follows,  "  I  will  send  with  letters."  Otherwise 
there  would  have  been  no  need  of  Paul's  sending  them,  i.  e. 
the  persons  approved  by  the  Corinthians.  The  people  wero 


I.  CORINTHIANS  1G,  3.4.5.  365 

to  collect  the  money ;  it  was  to  be  committed  to  men  of  their 
own  selection ;  but  Paul,  as  the  author  of  the  collection,  was 
to  send  it  to  Jerusalem.  If  the  apostle  deemed  it  wise  to 
place  himself  above  suspicion,  and  to  avoid  giving  even  the 
most  malicious  the  opportunity  of  calling  his  integrity  in  ques 
tion,  as  is  intimated  here,  and  expressly  stated  in  '2  Cor.  8,  19. 
20,  it  must  be  wise  for  other  men  and  ministers  to  act  with 
equal  caution.  If  called  to  disburse  the  money  of  others  or 
of  the  church,  let  that  money,  if  possible,  be  in  some  other 
custody  than  their  own,  that  others  may  know  what  is  done 
with  it.  Thus  at  least  Paul  acted. 

4.  And  if  it  be  meet  that  I  go  also,  they  shall  go 
with  me. 

And  if  it  is  deserving  of  my  going  ;  that  is,  if  the  collec 
tion  be  of  an  amount  to  make  it  proper  for  me  also  to  go  with 
it  to  Jerusalem,  your  messengers  shall  go  with  me.  According 
to  Acts  19,  21,  Paul  purposed,  after  visiting  Macedonia  and 
Achaia,  to  go  to  Jerusalem.  But  whether  he  would  go  at  the 
time  the  contribution  of  the  Corinthians  was  sent,  depended 
on  its  amount.  He  would  not  modify  his  plans  for  the  sake 
of  having  charge  of  the  distribution  of  an  inconsiderable 


sum. 


5.  Now  I  will  come  unto  you,  when  I  shall  pass 
through  Macedonia :  for  I  do  pass  through  Macedonia, 

It  appears  from  2  Cor.  1,  15.  16,  that^  Paul's  original  plan 
was  to  go  directly  from  Ephesus  to  Corinth,  and  from  there 
into  Macedonia,  and  then  back  again  to  Corinth,  and  thence 
to  Jerusalem.  He  now  informs  them  that  he  would  go  to 
Macedonia  before  going  to  Corinth.  So  eager  were  the  false 
teachers  in  Corinth  to  find  grounds  of  complaint  against  him, 
that  they  made  this  change  of  plan  a  grievous  ^offence,  and  a 
proof  that  he  was  not  to  be  depended  upon  either  as  to^his 
purposes  or  his  doctrine.  This  is  apparent  from  the  vindica 
tion  of  himself  in  the  second  Epistle.  For  I  do  pass  through 
Macedonia;  not,  I am  passing  ;  the  present  tense  expresses 
the  purpose  of  the  apostle  as  settled.  The  mistake  as  to  the 
force  of  the  tense  here,  probably  led  transcribers  to  date  this 
epistle  from  Philippi ;  whereas,  it  is  clear  from  v.  8,  that  it 
was  written  from  Ephesus. 


366  I.  CORINTHIANS  16,  6.7. 

G.  And  it  may  be  that  I  will  abide,  yea,  and  winter 
with  you,  that  ye  may  bring  me  on  my  journey  whither 
soever  I  go. 

'I  pass  through  Macedonia,  but  I  will  abide  with  you.' 
His  visit  to  the  former  was  to  be  transient,  to  the  latter  pro 
longed.  In  the  second  Epistle  he  speaks  of  himself  as  in  Mace 
donia,  and  in  Acts  20,  2.  3,  we  find  that  he  left  Ephesus  after 
the  uproar  in  that  city  and  went  to  Macedonia,  and  thence  to 
Greece,  where  he  abode  three  months.  The  plan  here  sketched 
was  therefore  executed.  He  would  remain  with  them  for  the 
winter,  he  says,  in  order  that  they  might  help  him  forward  on 
his  journey,  i.  e.  attend  him  on  his  way,  which  was  the  cus 
tomary  mark  of  respect.  Paul  wished  to  receive  this  courtesy 
from  the  Corinthians  rather  than  from  others,  as  his  affection 
for  them,  notwithstanding  the  trouble  and  anxiety  they  occa 
sioned  him  was,  as  is  evident  from  his  second  Epistle,  pecu 
liarly  strong. 

7.  Tor  I  will  not  see  you  now  by  the  way  ;  but  I 
trust  to  tarry  a  while  with  you,  if  the  Lord  permit. 

By  some  upri,  now,  is  connected  with  $eAco,  I  will.  4I  do 
not  now  wish,  as  I  formerly  intended.'  Its  natural  connec 
tion  is  with  iSeu/,  to  see.  c  I  do  not  wish  to  see  you  now  in 
passing.'  "But  I  hope;"  instead  of  8e,  but,  the  older  MSS. 
read  ydp  ;  "for  I  hope  to  tarry  with  you."  It  seems  that  the 
intelligence  which  Paul  received  in  Ephesus  concerning  the 
disorders  in  Corinth,  determined  him  to  write  them  this  let 
ter,  instead  of  making  them  a  passing  visit,  and  to  defer  his 
visit  for  some  months  in  order  that  his  letter  might  have  time 
to  produce  its  effect.  The  same  reason  determined  him,  when 
he  did  go  to  Corinth,  to  remain  there  some  time,  that  he  might 
correct  the  abuses  which  had  sprung  up  in  his  absence.  The 
second  Epistle  shows  how  anxious  he  was  about  the  effect  of 
this  letter,  and  how  overjoyed  he  was  when  Titus  brought  him 
the  intelligence  that  it  had  brought  the  people  to  repentance. 
If  the  Lord  permit,  (eVn-peTn?),  or,  '  If  the  Lord  shall  have  permit 
ted'  (eWpe'i/oy).  The  latter  reading  is  adopted  by  the  later 


dopted  by 

editors.  The  Lord  is  Christ,  whom  Paul  recognized  as  order 
ing  all  events,  and  whose  guidance  he  sought  and  always  sub 
mitted  to. 


I.   CORINTHIANS   16,  8.9.10  367 

8.  9.  But  I  will  tarry  at  Epliesus  until  Pentecost. 
For  a  great  door  and  effectual  is  opened  unto  me,  and 
(there  are)  many  adversaries. 

There  were  two  reasons,  therefore,  for  his  remaining  at 
Ephesus,  his  abundant  opportunities  of  usefulness,  and  the  ne 
cessity  of  withstanding  the  adversaries  of  the  gospel.  Paul's 
plan  was  to  spend  the  spring  at  Ephesus,  the  summer  in  Mace 
donia,  and  the  winter  in  Corinth.  The  Pentecost  of  the  fol 
lowing  year  he  spent  in  Jerusalem.  He  could  not  leave  Ephe 
sus  soon,  /or,  he  says,  a  great  and  effectual  door  is  opened  to 
me.  A  door  is  a  way  of  entrance,  and  figuratively  an  oppor 
tunity  of  entering  into  the  possession  of  the  convictions  and 
hearts  of  men.  A  great  door  was  opened  to  the  apostle,  he 
had  a  wide  field  of  usefulness.  The  epithet  effectual  does  not 
agree  with  the  figure,  but  the  meaning  is  plain — the  opportu 
nities  were  such  as  could  be  turned  to  good  eifect.  And  there 
are  many  adversaries.  The  opponents  of  the  gospel  varied 
very  much  in  character  in  diiferent  places.  Those  in  Ephesus 
were  principally  men  interested  in  the  worship  of  Diana.  The 
pressure  of  the  heathen  seems  to  have  driven  the  Jews  and 
Christians  to  make  common  cause,  Acts  19,  22.  Whereas,  in 
Corinth,  Paul's  most  bitter  opponents  were  Judaizers.  The 
presence  of  such  violent  adversaries  rendered  the  personal 
support  of  the  apostle  more  necessary  to  the  church. 

10.  Now  if  Timotlieus  come,  see  that  he  may  be 
with  you  without  fear :  for  he  worketh  the  work  of  the 
Lord,  as  I  also  (do.) 

In  Acts  19,  22,  we  read  that  Paul  "sent  into  Macedonia 
two  of  those  who  ministered  to  him,  Timotlieus  and  Erastus; 
but  he  himself  stayed  in  Asia  for  a  season."  Timothy,  there 
fore,  at  this  time,  was  travelling  through  Macedonia,  and  ex 
pected  to  reach  Corinth,  whither  the  apostle  had  sent  him ; 
see  4,  17.  Besides  this  mission  of  Timothy,  there  was  anoth 
er  some  time  later,  consisting  of  Titus  and  other  brethren,  who 
were  sent  to  learn  the  effect  produced  by  this  letter ;  and 
whose  return  the  apostle  so  anxiously  awaited,  2  Cor.  2, 
12.  13.  Paul  requests  the  Corinthians  so  to  receive  Timo 
thy  that  he  might  be  there  without  fear.  It  was  not  fear  of 
personal  violence,  but  the  fear  of  not  being  regarded  with 
respect  and  confidence.  The  reason  by  which  he  enforces  his 


368  I.  CORINTHIANS  16,  10.11.12. 

request  shows  the  nature  of  the  evil  which  he  apprehended, 
for  lie  worketh  the  work  of  the  Lord.  If  they  would  recog 
nize  this,  Timothy  would  be  satisfied.  The  work  of  the  Lord, 
as  in  15,  58,  may  mean  either  that  work  in  which  the  Lord 
himself  is  engaged ;  or  that  which  he  has  prescribed.  As  I 
also  do.  A  comprehensive  commendation.  Timothy  preached 
the  same  gospel  that  Paul  preached ;  and  with  like  assiduity 
and  fidelity. 

11.  Let  no  man  therefore  despise  him:  but  con 
duct  him  forth  in  peace,  that  he  may  come  unto  me : 
for  I  look  for  him  with  the  brethren. 

Therefore,  i.  e.  because  he  works  the  work  of  the  Lord, 
he  is  entitled  to  respect,  and  ought  not  to  be  despised.  Per 
haps  it  was  Timothy's  youth  that  made  the  apostle  specially 
solicitous  on  this^  account,  1  Tim.  4,  12.  But  conduct  him 
forth  in  peace  ;  i.  e.  attend  him  on  his  journey  in  a  friendly 
manner.  That  he  may  come  to  me.  It  was  not  Paul's  wish 
that  Timothy  should  remain  in  Corinth  ;  but  after  having  exe 
cuted  his  commission,  4,  1 7,  he  was  to  return  to  the  apostle. 
He  did  thus  return,  and  was  with  Paul  when  he  wrote  the 
second  Epistle,  2  Cor.  1,1.  I  expect  him  with  the  brethren, 
i.  e.  the  brethren  whom  Paul  had  appointed  as  Timothy's  trav 
elling  companions.  It  is  rare  in  the  New  Testament  that  we 
read  of  any  one  going  on  a  missionary  tour  aloae. 

12.  As  touching  (our)  brother  Apollos,  I  greatly 
desired  him  to  come  unto  you  with  the  brethren  :  but 
his  will  was  not  at  all  to  come  at  this  time ;  but  he 
will  come  when  he  shall  have  convenient  time. 

Either  the  Corinthians,  among  whom  Apollos  had  already 
laboured,  had  requested  Paul  to  send  him  to  them  again ;  or 
for  some  other  reason,  the  apostle  earnestly  wished  that  he 
would  accompany  the  brethren  from  Corinth,  who  were  to 
carry  this  epistle  back  with  them  ;  see  v.  1 7.  It  appears  from 
this  verse  that  Apollos  was  not  under  Paul's  authority.  No 
reason  is  given  for  his  declining  to  go  to  Corinth  but  that  he 
was  not  willing.  "Why  he  was  not  willing  is  matter  of  conjec 
ture.  Many  suppose  it  was  because  his  name  had  been  mixed 
•ip  with  the  party  strifes  which  disturbed  the  church  there, 


I.   CORINTHIANS   16,  13.  14.  15.  16.         369 

1,  12.  I  greatly  desired  him  ;  or,  I  often  exhorted  him,  that 
he  would  come,  &c.  *va  does  not  here  mean,  in  order  that^ 
but  indicates  the  purport  of  the  request. 

13.  14.  Watch  ye,  stand  fast  in  the  faith,  quit  yon 
like  men,  be  strong.  Let  all  your  things  be  done  with 
charity. 

These  coneise  exhortations  form  a  fitting  close  to  the 
epistle ;  each  being  adapted  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  Corinthians,  though  of  course  applicable  to  all  Christians 
in  their  conflicts  with  the  world.  1.  He  exhorts  them  to 
watch,  i.  e.  to  be  wakeful,  constantly  on  the  alert,  that  their 
spiritual  enemies  might  not  gain  advantage  over  them  before 
they  were  aware  of  their  danger.  2.  Beset  as  they  were  with 
false  teachers,  who  handled  deceitfully  the  word  of  God,  2  Cor. 
4,  2,  he  exhorts  them  to  standfast  in  the  faith.  Do  not  con 
sider  every  point  of  doctrine  an  open  question.  Matters  of 
faith,  doctrines  for  which  you  have  a  clear  revelation  of  God, 
such  for  example  as  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  are  to  be 
considered  settled,  and,  as  among  Christians,  no  longer  mat 
ters  of  dispute.  There  are  doctrines  embraced  in  the  creeds 
of  all  orthodox  churches,  so  clearly  taught  in  Scripture,  that 
it  is  not  only  useless,  but  hurtful,  to  be  always  calling  them 
into  question.  3.  Quit  you  like  men.  The  circumstances  of 
the  Corinthians  called  for  great  courage.  They  had  to  with 
stand  the  contempt  of  the  learned,  and  the  persecutions  of  the 
powerful.  4.  Be  strong.  Not  only  courage,  but  strength, 
was  needed  to  withstand  their  enemies,  and  to  bear  up  under 
the  trials  which  were  to  come  upon  them.  5.  Let  all  your 
affairs  ~be  conducted  in  love,  i.  e.  let  love  prevail,  in  your  hearts, 
in  your  families,  in  your  assemblies.  The  preceding  parts  of 
the  epistle  show  how  much  need  there  was  for  this  exhorta 
tion  ;  as  the  church  was  rent  with  factions,  and  even  the  Lord's 
supper,  every  where  else  a  feast  of  love,  had  become  in  Corinth 
a  fountain  of  bitterness. 

15.  16.  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  [ye  know  the  house 
of  Stephanas,  that  it  is  the  first-fruits  of  Achaia,  and 
(that)  they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of 
the  saints,]  that  ye  submit  yourselves  unto  such,  and  to 
every  one  that  helpeth  with  (us,)  and  laboureth. 
16* 


370  I.  CORINTHIANS  16,  16.  17.  18. 

The  family  of  Stephanas  was  the  first  family  in  Achaia  that 
embraced  the  gospel.  In  Rom.  16,  5,  Epenetus,  according 
to  the  common  text,  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  fruits  of 
Achaia  ;  but  there  the  true  reading  is  Asia  ;  so  that  there  is 
no  conflict  between  the  two  passages.  Of  the  family  of  Ste 
phanas  it  is  said,  that  they  addicted  themselves  to  the  minister- 
inffm  °f  the  saints,  i.  e.  devoted  themselves  to  the  service  of 
believers.  The  expression  does  not  necessarily  involve  the 
idea  of  any  official  service.  The  exhortation  is,  that  ye  also 
submit  yourselves  to  such.  c  As  they  serve  you,  do  you  serve 
them.'  Nothing  is  more  natural  than  submission  to  the  good. 
And  to  every  one  that  lielpeth  with  (such),  and  laboureth.  This 
may  mean,  submit  yourselves  to  every  one  who  co-operates  with 
such  persons ;  i.  e.  to  all  who  in  like  manner  are  addicted  to 
the  service  of  believers.  Those  who  serve,  should  be  served. 

17.  I  am  glad  of  the  coming  of  Stephanas  and 
Fortunatus  and  Achaicus  :  for  that  which  was  lacking 
on  your  part  they  have  supplied. 

These  were  members  of  the  church  in  Corinth,  who  visited 
Ephesus  probably  for  the  express  purpose  of  seeing  the  apos 
tle,  and  of  consulting  him  on  the  condition  of  the  church. 
They  were  probably  the  bearers  of  the  letter  from  the  Corin 
thians  to  Paul,  to  which  he  alludes  in  7,  1.  The  reason  why 
he  rejoiced  in  their  presence  was,  that  they  supplied  what  was 
lacking  on  the  part  of  the  Corinthians  /  or  rather,  the  want 
of  you  (TO  vjjLCTepov  va-TtprjfjLCL ;  {yxeVepov  being  objective,  as  in 
15,  31.)  The  presence  of  these  brethren  made  up  to  the  apos 
tle,  in  a  measure,  the  absence  of  the  Corinthians.  Another 
explanation  is,  '  they  have  done  what  you  failed  to  do,'  i.  e.  in 
formed  me  of  the  true  state  of  things  in  Corinth.  The  former 
view  of  the  meaning  is  the  common  one,  and  is  more  in  keep 
ing  with  the  tone  of  the  passage,  which  is  affectionate  and 
conciliatory.  This  too  is  confirmed  by  what  follows. 

18.  For  they  have  refreshed  my  spirit  and  yours  : 
therefore  acknowledge  ye  them  that  are  such. 

For,  i.  e.  They  have  supplied  your  place,  for  their  presence 
has  had  the  same  effect  as  would  have  followed  from  our  being 
together.  It  has  refreshed  me,  and  it  has  had  a  corresponding 
effect  on  you.  '  To  them,'  as  Meyer  and  others  explain  it, 


I.  CORINTHIANS  16,  18.19.20.  371 

4  you  owe  whatever  in  my  letter  serves  to  refresh  you.'  Others 
think  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  effect  of  the  return  of  these 
brethren  to  Corinth,  and  the  assurances  they  would  carry  with 
them  of  the  apostle's  love.  Or,  Paul  may  mean,  that  what  re 
freshed  him,  must  also  gratify  them.  They  would  rejoice  in 
his  joy.  However  understood,  it  is  one  of  the  examples  of 
urbanity  with  which  this  apostle's  writings  abound.  There 
fore  acknowledge  them  that  are  such,  i.  e.  recognize  and  ap 
preciate  them  properly. 

19.  The  churches  of  Asia  salute  you.     Aquila  and 
Priscilla  salute  you  much  in  the  Lord,  with  the  church 
that  is  in  their  house. 

Asia  here  means  proconsular  Asia,  of  which  Ephesus  was 
the  capital,  and  which  included  the  seven  apocalyptic  churches. 
To  salute,  in  a  general  sense,  is  to  wish  safety  to ;  in  a  Chris 
tian  sense,  it  is  to  wish  salvation  to  any  one.  This  was  in 
cluded  in  the  Hebrew  formula  of  salutation,  "  Peace  be  with 
you,"  which  passed  into  the  service  of  Christians.  To  salute 
any  one  in  the  Lord,  is  to  salute  him  as  a  Christian  and  in  a 
Christian  manner.  It  is  to  salute  him  because  he  is  in  the 
Lord,  and  in  a  way  acceptable  to  the  Lord.  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  when  driven  from  Rome,  as  mentioned  in  Acts  18,  2, 
settled  in  Corinth.  They  accompanied  the  apostle  to  Ephesus, 
and  remained  there,  Acts  18,  18.  The  church  which  is  in 
their  house,  i.  e.  the  company  of  Christians  which  meet  in  their 
house.  As  the  same  expression  is  used  Rom.  16,  5,  in  connec 
tion  with  their  names,  it  is  probable  that  both  at  Rome  and 
Ephesus,  they  opened  their  house  as  a  regular  place  of  meet 
ing  for  Christians.  Their  occupation  as  tent-makers  probably 
required  spacious  apartments,  suited  for  the  purpose  of  such 
assemblies. 

20.  All   the  brethren   greet  you.     Greet  ye  one 
another  with  a  holy  kiss. 

As  all  the  brethren  in  this  verse  are  distinguished  from  the 
church  in  the  house  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  mentioned  in  v. 
19,  it  may  be  inferred  that  only  a  portion,  and  probably  a  small 
portion  of  the  Christians  of  Ephesus  were  accustomed  to  meet 
in  that  place.  The  apostle  exhorts  them  to  greet  one  another 
with  a  holy  Uss,  Rom.  16,  16.  2  Cor.  13,  12.  1  Thess,  5,  26. 


372  I.   CORINTHIANS   16,  20.21.22. 

This  was  the  conventional  token  of  Christian  affection.  In  the 
East  the  kiss  was  a  sign  either  of  friendship  among  equals,  or 
of  reverence  and  submission  on  the  part  of  an  inferior.  The 
people  kissed  the  images  of  their  gods,  and  the  hands  of 
princes.  In  the  early  church,  the  custom  was  for  Christians 
when  they  met  to  kiss ;  and  in  their  assemblies,  especially  after 
the  Lord's  supper,  this  token  of  Christian  brotherhood  was  in 
terchanged.  Paul  seems  here  to  request,  that  when  his  letter 
was  publicly  read,  the  members  of  the  church  would  give  to 
each  other  this  pledge  of  mutual  forgiveness  and  love. 

21.  The  salutation  of  (me)  Paul  with  mine  own 
hand. 

As  Paul  commonly  wrote  by  an  amanuensis,  he  was  accus 
tomed  to  write  with  his  own  hand  the  concluding  sentences 
of  his  epistle  as  an  authentication  of  them,  Col.  4, 18.  2  Thess. 
3,  17.  He  remarks  in  Gal.  6,  11,  on  his  having  written  that 
epistle  with  his  own  hand  as  something  unusual,  and  as  indi 
cating  a  peculiar  stress  of  feeling. 

22.  If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let 
him  be  Anathema.     Maran  atha. 

This  and  what  follows  is  what  Paul  himself  wrote.  They 
are  words  which  need  no  explanation.  They  carry  with  them 
their  awful  import  to  every  heart.  If  any  man  love  not  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  our  Lord  be  "  God  over  all  and  blessed 
for  ever,"  want  of  love  to  him  is  the  violation  of  our  whole 
duty.  If  he  be  not  only  truly  God,  but  God  manifested  in  the 
flesh  for  our  salvation ;  if  he  unites  in  himself  all  divine  and  all 
human  excellence ;  if  he  has  so  loved  us  as  to  unite  our  nature 
to  his  own,  and  to  humble  himself  and  become  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross,  that  we  might  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life ;  then  our  own  hearts  must  assent  to 
the  justness  of  the  malediction  pronounced  even  against  our 
selves,  if  we  do  not  love  him.  We  must  feel  that  in  that  case 
we  deserve  to  be  anathema.  Nay,  we  thereby  are  a  thing 
accursed;  we  are  an  object  of  execration  and  loathing  to  all 
holy  beings  by  the  same  necessity  that  holiness  is  opposed  to 
sin.  Maran  atha  are  two  Aramcean  words  signifying  "  The 
Lord,"  or  "  our  Lord  comes."  It  is  a  solemn  warning.  The 
Lord,  whom  men  refuse  to  recognize  and  love,  is  about  to 


I.  CORINTHIANS   16,  22.23.24.  373 

come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  and  with  all  his  holy  angels, 
to  take  vengeance  on  those  who  know  not  God,  and  who  obey 
not  the  gospel.  So  deeply  were  the  apostles  impressed  with 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  so  fully  were  they  convinced  that  Jesus 
was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  that  the  refusal  or  inability  to 
recognize  him  as  such,  seemed  to  them  a  mark  of  reprobation. 
If  this  truth  be  hid,  they  say,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost, 
2  Cor.  4,  3-6. 

23.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (be)  with 
you. 

As  to  be  anathema  from  Christ,  to  be  the  subject  of  his 
curse,  is  everlasting  perdition  ;  so  his  favour  is  eternal  life. 
"  May  his  love  be  with  you,"  is  a  prayer  for  all  good. 

24.  My  love  (be)  with  you  all  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Amen. 

"  My  love  in  Christ "  is  my  Christian  love.  Paul  in  con 
clusion  assures  them  all,  all  the  believers  in  Corinth,  even 
those  whom  he  had  been  called  upon  to  reprove,  of  his  sincere 
love. 


THE   END. 


-. 


H 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


1 


i    nil       i  mil 


